Tolkien Scholars / Writers
Warrior of Rohan
Yes, I am still compiling a list from all the bibliographies I can find.
(Its going to be a bid one!)
Now, how about you top 10 list of Tolkien scholars. This does not
necessarily mean they have to have written a book. There are some good
Tolkien scholars that have not written books, papers maybe but not a book.
I'll do same as before with "best book' and compile a list of the 10 ten
mention scholars. (This is a lot easy than the top 10 books!)
Have at it.
Larry Swain
Wayne Hammond and Christine Scull (2 together), David Bratman, Michael
Drout, Dan Timmons, Douglas Anderson
Troels Forchhammer
Swain <thes...@operamail.com> enriched us with:
>
> Warrior of Rohan wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> I'll do same as before with "best book' and compile a list of the
>> 10 ten mention scholars.
The ten "most mentioned" or the union of all our "top 10 scholars"
lists?
>> (This is a lot easy than the top 10 books!)
<style="sarcasm">
Yeah, right!
</style>
> Humphrey Carpenter, Christopher Tolkien, Tom Shippey, Verlyn
> Flieger, Wayne Hammond and Christine Scull (2 together), David
> Bratman, Michael Drout, Dan Timmons, Douglas Anderson
I don't know David Bratman and Dan Timmons, and I'm naturally curious
about what they've done ;-)
Apart from those two (about whom I can, naturally, have no opinion to
offer), I pretty much agree that everyone on your list deserves to be
there.
I think my list would probably attempt to include scholars covering
more areas of Tolkien research -- I note that you don't have any of
the linguists/philologists on your list (except for Christopher, of
course, and of course possibly the two I don't know).
I think I'd include Carl Hostetter representing the philological
side, and someone to represent the kind of studies we usually
undertake here (the 'story-internal explanation' -- studies of
Middle-earth as if it were a real place), Conrad, perhaps, though I'm
more in doubt about that (it beign my own natural playground, I know
the names of more excellent scholars than in other areas).
Perhaps also a cartographer -- Karen Wynn Fonstad, would be my
natural choice there, but then I'd have to take out someone from your
list that I know of (or consider Hammond & Scull as one entry <G>).
And what about experts on Tolkien's professional work? Though not
strictly a line of Tolkien scholarship (specializing in one man's
contributions to the field would seem a bit limited to me), but
still.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided
into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from,
and (d) rocks.
- /Equal Rites/ (Terry Pratchett)
Larry Swain
> In message <news:uuSdnb6efP9_SSjZ...@rcn.net> Larry
> Swain <thes...@operamail.com> enriched us with:
>
>>Warrior of Rohan wrote:
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>>I'll do same as before with "best book' and compile a list of the
>>>10 ten mention scholars.
>
>
> The ten "most mentioned" or the union of all our "top 10 scholars"
> lists?
>>Humphrey Carpenter, Christopher Tolkien, Tom Shippey, Verlyn
>>Flieger, Wayne Hammond and Christine Scull (2 together), David
>>Bratman, Michael Drout, Dan Timmons, Douglas Anderson
>
>
> I don't know David Bratman and Dan Timmons, and I'm naturally curious
> about what they've done ;-)
Let me begin by saying that I left out a person who should be there, and
since Wayne and Christine are taken together (to a degree cheating,
since Wayne in particular stands in his own right), and that's Carl
Hostetter (sorry, Carl).
David Bratman is a long time member of the Mythopoeic Society and has
served in several capacities there. He is also doing the bibliographies
for Tolkien Studies in addition to his own publications on Tolkien and
the Inklings that have appeared various places. His web page is here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~dbratman/ I really like his insights.
Dan Timmons was a young scholar who wrote several very perceptive essays
on Tolkien and co-edited with George Clark one of my top 10 books, "J.
R. R. Tolkien and His Literary Resonances: Views of Middle-Earth" He
died this past Dec. of Lou Gehrig's disease. I've only seen bits of his
1999 dissertation on Tolkien (Mirror on MIddle Earth), but it looks very
good.
Jane Chance should be up there too, though I'm not sure whom to remove
to give her a place--perhaps Dan since he was really just getting started.
>
> I think my list would probably attempt to include scholars covering
> more areas of Tolkien research -- I note that you don't have any of
> the linguists/philologists on your list (except for Christopher, of
> course, and of course possibly the two I don't know).
>
> I think I'd include Carl Hostetter representing the philological
> side,
Great minds and all that.
and someone to represent the kind of studies we usually
> undertake here (the 'story-internal explanation' -- studies of
> Middle-earth as if it were a real place), Conrad, perhaps, though I'm
> more in doubt about that (it beign my own natural playground, I know
> the names of more excellent scholars than in other areas).
Yes, I considered that too. In my own mind I debate whether the sorts
of discussions we undertake here or in other fora on the 'Net count as
"scholarship", and go back and forth on the question. Would a scholar
for example ask whether elves have pointed ears or balrogs wings? And
even if a scholar would, how would a scholar go about answering the
question in ways differently or the same as the discussions here have?
So there are several here I think who could fit into that if we say yes,
scholarship includes debates on rabt etc, then Conrad, Michael Martinez,
Steuard, and Stan, and yourself, all qualify; the next question though
would be if those 5 people are on a par with CT, Carpenter, Shippey,
etc. I don't know. I am of two minds on every level of the issue.
>
> Perhaps also a cartographer -- Karen Wynn Fonstad, would be my
> natural choice there, but then I'd have to take out someone from your
> list that I know of (or consider Hammond & Scull as one entry <G>).
Well, H&S were to be considered a single entry. Fonstad is good, but is
she top 10? Top 15 or 20, sure, but top 10?
> And what about experts on Tolkien's professional work? Though not
> strictly a line of Tolkien scholarship (specializing in one man's
> contributions to the field would seem a bit limited to me), but
> still.
Well, when asked about top ten Tolkien scholars I assumed that meant
also on his professional works. Shippey, Timmons, Drout, Chance,
Flieger, and Anderson have all published on Tolkien's professional work.
Flieger in fact has continued some of Tolkien's professional work on
the Ancrene Wisse. And there is the new "Ring of Words" book's authors
too--can't wait to get that one!
Mic...@xenite.org
> ...Would a scholar for example ask whether elves have pointed ears or
> balrogs wings? And even if a scholar would, how would a scholar go
> about answering the question in ways differently or the same as the
> discussions here have? So there are several here I think who could fit
> into that if we say yes, scholarship includes debates on rabt etc, then
> Conrad, Michael Martinez, Steuard, and Stan, and yourself, all qualify;
> the next question though would be if those 5 people are on a par with CT,
> Carpenter, Shippey, etc. I don't know. I am of two minds on every level
> of the issue.
You bring an academic's point of view to the question, where peer
review is considered essential to achieving scholarly recognition. Yet
even Michael Drout has pointed out that some of the names typically
listed at the top of scholarly research lists are not academics
(http://wormtalk.blogspot.com/2003_11_02_wormtalk_archive.html):
"It is an interesting fact that a great many of the very best
contemporary Tolkien scholars are not professors: Wayne Hammond and
Christina Scull, Doug Anderson, David Bratman, Richard West, Carl
Hostetter... many of these scholars have academic affiliations (at
libraries, etc.), but they aren't professors of English or history or
cultural studies. Yet they are among the best."
Populist scholarship (the study of topics outside the academic
community) has been around for far longer than we have had academic
scholarship. That some choose to study the story internals rather than
the story sources, influences, and relevances doesn't mean their
efforts should be given less consideration in the value of overall
scholarship.
Many academic papers on Tolkien are laughably bad simply because their
authors are so unfamiliar with the story internals as to be describing
completely fictional (David Dayesque) works that barely resemble
Tolkien's work. At the very least, one should be versed in the topic
if one wishes to comment on the topic and be taken seriously.
Story internal studies have taken it on the chin for years, and the fan
disputes don't help establish credibility for this type of research.
But in future generations, academics and non-academics alike will
probably turn more attention to how Tolkien put it all together and
less to why he did it or where he may have gotten his ideas.
--
Scholarship: That's the thing that takes you from ignorance to bliss in
a momentary lapse of judgement.
Research: That's what you use to build the scholarship.
Enlightenment: That's what you seek to achieve after you realize the
ship is overburdened and need to dump as much baggage as possible.
Larry Swain
> Larry Swain wrote:
>
>>...Would a scholar for example ask whether elves have pointed ears or
>>balrogs wings? And even if a scholar would, how would a scholar go
>>about answering the question in ways differently or the same as the
>>discussions here have? So there are several here I think who could fit
>>into that if we say yes, scholarship includes debates on rabt etc, then
>>Conrad, Michael Martinez, Steuard, and Stan, and yourself, all qualify;
>>the next question though would be if those 5 people are on a par with CT,
>>Carpenter, Shippey, etc. I don't know. I am of two minds on every level
>>of the issue.
>
>
> You bring an academic's point of view to the question, where peer
> review is considered essential to achieving scholarly recognition.
No, I bring a scholar's point of view to the question.
Yet
> even Michael Drout has pointed out that some of the names typically
> listed at the top of scholarly research lists are not academics
> (http://wormtalk.blogspot.com/2003_11_02_wormtalk_archive.html):
>
> "It is an interesting fact that a great many of the very best
> contemporary Tolkien scholars are not professors: Wayne Hammond and
> Christina Scull, Doug Anderson, David Bratman, Richard West, Carl
> Hostetter... many of these scholars have academic affiliations (at
> libraries, etc.), but they aren't professors of English or history or
> cultural studies. Yet they are among the best."
And you'll note that each person whom Michael Drout mentioned appears in
my top ten list, except Richard West, who would make my top 12.
> Populist scholarship (the study of topics outside the academic
> community) has been around for far longer than we have had academic
> scholarship.
a) immaterial to the issue.
b) I'm not yet certain that there is "populist scholarship", with the
emphasis on scholarship. If you are including non-academic writers as
"populist", see above; if on the other hand you are including or
defining "populist scholarship" by the material you publish, well I need
convincing that that is scholarship. I'm not sure it is; and as I
stated to Troels, I'm not sure it isn't. Convince me.
c) I disagree with your statement as a whole. The first people outside
of Tolkien's family who saw anything of Tolkien's writings were scholars
and academics who didn't just turn themselves off to become "populist";
their responses, even C. S. Lewis', were scholarly and academic and
literary. Further, even in print, the first in print reactions to
Tolkien's works were literary reviews written by scholars. So unless by
"populist scholarship" you mean the reactions of the Tolkien children,
I'm not certain how you can maintain that populist scholarship of
Tolkien has been around longer than "academic".
That some choose to study the story internals rather than
> the story sources, influences, and relevances doesn't mean their
> efforts should be given less consideration in the value of overall
> scholarship.
Agreed. But then studying the story internals as you put it is the
bread and butter of the literary scholar: source criticism or reader
response (audience), and relevance questions are only types of literary
criticism that not everyone (not even everyone working on Tolkien!)
follows: plenty of "story internal" books and papers out there that are
what I have no doubt are scholarly. So I think this distinction that
you make here is a false distinction.
>
> Many academic papers on Tolkien are laughably bad simply because their
> authors are so unfamiliar with the story internals as to be describing
> completely fictional (David Dayesque) works that barely resemble
> Tolkien's work.
True, but that's just bad scholarship, and there's plenty of that to go
around everywhere. And just as there is bad scholarship there are
plenty of people who on the one hand are not scholars and do not the
"story internals" and so make mistakes and likewise, many who know story
internals who get things wrong because they don't know anything else.
At the very least, one should be versed in the topic
> if one wishes to comment on the topic and be taken seriously.
Here we are in agreement. Shocking as that may be.
>
> Story internal studies have taken it on the chin for years,
See above. It isn't "story internal studies" that's taken it on the
chin; if anything has taken it on the chin its populist, non-scholarly
interpretations.
Christopher Kreuzer
Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
> Warrior of Rohan wrote:
>> Okay, we got a good list of the "best" books about Tolkien /
>> Middle-Earth. Yes, I am still compiling a list from all the
>> bibliographies I can find. (Its going to be a bid one!)
>>
>> Now, how about you top 10 list of Tolkien scholars.
<snip>
> Humphrey Carpenter, Christopher Tolkien, Tom Shippey, Verlyn Flieger,
> Wayne Hammond and Christine Scull (2 together), David Bratman, Michael
> Drout, Dan Timmons, Douglas Anderson
Hopefully others have already added John Garth and John D. Rateliff.
Some others I have enjoyed, but wouldn't presume to rank, are Jane
Chance, several of the linguistic scholars, Joe Christopher, plus many
others I can't remember at the moment!
One thing I would say, despite Warrior of Rohan saying that books aren't
needed, is that a good way to compare (not rank) people, is to just list
the books and papers they have written. And of course, some people work
in obscure areas, producing small but perfectly-formed papers on
little-known subjects. Quality over quantity.
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Christopher Kreuzer
> Larry Swain wrote:
>> ...Would a scholar for example ask whether elves have pointed ears or
>> balrogs wings? And even if a scholar would, how would a scholar go
>> about answering the question in ways differently or the same as the
>> discussions here have? So there are several here I think who could
>> fit into that if we say yes, scholarship includes debates on rabt
>> etc, then Conrad, Michael Martinez, Steuard, and Stan, and yourself,
>> all qualify; the next question though would be if those 5 people are
>> on a par with CT, Carpenter, Shippey, etc. I don't know. I am of
>> two minds on every level of the issue.
>
> You bring an academic's point of view to the question, where peer
> review is considered essential to achieving scholarly recognition.
> Yet even Michael Drout has pointed out that some of the names
> typically listed at the top of scholarly research lists are not
> academics
> (http://wormtalk.blogspot.com/2003_11_02_wormtalk_archive.html):
>
> "It is an interesting fact that a great many of the very best
> contemporary Tolkien scholars are not professors: Wayne Hammond and
> Christina Scull, Doug Anderson, David Bratman, Richard West, Carl
> Hostetter... many of these scholars have academic affiliations (at
> libraries, etc.), but they aren't professors of English or history or
> cultural studies. Yet they are among the best."
Though a good expert viewpoint is always helpful. One of the best essays
I ever read about Tolkien's place in the (heroic) romance tradition was
(I think) written by Joe R. Christopher, a Professor of English. You
could just tell he knew his stuff. Similarly, when I read stuff about
Tolkien's languages, or about how people translate LotR, you can tell
when an expert is talking about his or her field of knowledge, and when
someone is dabbling in it. When I wrote a paper recently, I considered
delving in depth into some aspects of worldwide mythology, but soon
discovered that I lacked: (a) the necessary general knowledge of the
subject; (b) the time to acquire said general knowledge; (c) the time to
pinpoint the areas I needed to concentrate on. This meant I had to
reject the idea of writing a general discussion on how what I was
writing about related to world mythologies - it would have been obvious
I didn't know what I was talking about!
Reading something that Shippey writes, you can see by the throwaway
comments that he has summarised whole arguments within a field in a few
sentences. To do that properly, you need to know the subject area in
intimate detail.
Though having said that, I tend to think that there is room for several
different levels and types of scholarship within Tolkien studies (as it
is coming to be known). Each building on the strengths of the other.
Stan Brown
<aj...@fuse.net>:
> Okay, we got a good list of the "best" books about Tolkien / Middle-Earth.
Does it still include David Day?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Mic...@xenite.org
> Mic...@xenite.org wrote:
> > Larry Swain wrote:
> >
> >>...Would a scholar for example ask whether elves have pointed ears or
> >>balrogs wings? And even if a scholar would, how would a scholar go
> >>about answering the question in ways differently or the same as the
> >>discussions here have? So there are several here I think who could fit
> >>into that if we say yes, scholarship includes debates on rabt etc, then
> >>Conrad, Michael Martinez, Steuard, and Stan, and yourself, all qualify;
> >>the next question though would be if those 5 people are on a par with CT,
> >>Carpenter, Shippey, etc. I don't know. I am of two minds on every level
> >>of the issue.
> >
> >
> > You bring an academic's point of view to the question, where peer
> > review is considered essential to achieving scholarly recognition.
>
> No, I bring a scholar's point of view to the question.
My mistake. You bring an academic's prejudice to the question.
> > Populist scholarship (the study of topics outside the academic
> > community) has been around for far longer than we have had academic
> > scholarship.
>
> a) immaterial to the issue.
That IS the issue because...
> b) I'm not yet certain that there is "populist scholarship",
You're playing games.
As usual. I'll ignore you for the rest of my participation in this
discussion.
--
If the Feanorian Noldor spoke as Feanor, they would have demanded that
Morgoth give back their Thilmaril.
Larry Swain
> Larry Swain wrote:
>
>>Mic...@xenite.org wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Swain wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>...Would a scholar for example ask whether elves have pointed ears or
>>>>balrogs wings? And even if a scholar would, how would a scholar go
>>>>about answering the question in ways differently or the same as the
>>>>discussions here have? So there are several here I think who could fit
>>>>into that if we say yes, scholarship includes debates on rabt etc, then
>>>>Conrad, Michael Martinez, Steuard, and Stan, and yourself, all qualify;
>>>>the next question though would be if those 5 people are on a par with CT,
>>>>Carpenter, Shippey, etc. I don't know. I am of two minds on every level
>>>>of the issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>You bring an academic's point of view to the question, where peer
>>>review is considered essential to achieving scholarly recognition.
>>
>>No, I bring a scholar's point of view to the question.
>
>
> My mistake. You bring an academic's prejudice to the question.
Really? When half my top ten list are the very non-academic people you
pointed us too? How prejudiced of me to agree with you.
>
>
>>>Populist scholarship (the study of topics outside the academic
>>>community) has been around for far longer than we have had academic
>>>scholarship.
>>
>>a) immaterial to the issue.
>
>
> That IS the issue because...
It may be an issue, and one certainly worth discussing, but NOT the one
that Warrior raised. Hence, immaterial to the issue.
>
>
>>b) I'm not yet certain that there is "populist scholarship",
>
>
> You're playing games.
No, I'm looking at more than one side of things. I know that you are
unable to perform such mental exercises or to distinguish that a and b
address different points. Point a points out that the issue you raised
is not the one that has been discussed thus far in the thread nor was it
the issue Warrior raised, so your false dichotomy is beside the point.
Point b addresses your concern directly. That's not playing games,
that's intellectually examining a larger set of issues than a single one
in black and white terms, an intellectual process you seem unable to
either recognize or master.
>
> As usual. I'll ignore you for the rest of my participation in this
> discussion.
Good. Then allow me to translate this for you: "Oh, Larry actually did
cite 5 of the 6 most well-known non-academic Tolkien experts that I
Michael pointed to and so disproved all my charges against him before I
even posted. Guess I better insult Larry and quit the field before
someone notices that my pants are around my ankles." Typical Michael.
Warrior of Rohan
interesting even with the errors.
"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f20aab67...@news.individual.net...
Warrior of Rohan
is difficult enough as it is)
1. Wayne Hammond & (Christine Scull) I'll allow this as one entry
2. Tom Shippey
3. Verlyn Flieger
4. Alex Lewis
5. Carl Hostetter
6. Christopher Tolkien
7. Doug Anderson
8. John Ratcliffe
9. John Garth
10. Michael Drout
I liked Christopher's comments about various levels, quality versus
quantity. Maybe I could have called it Tolkien experts rather than
scholars. Then we could include those people that are very knowledgeable
about Tolkien but not necessarily on a scholarly level as we know it. Maybe
a new thread to list experts, collectors, web sites etc.
"Warrior of Rohan" <aj...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:371ef$44b5a3b7$42a19f37$75...@FUSE.NET...
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> Maybe a new thread to list experts, collectors, web
> sites etc.
Oooh! Good idea! :-)
Though the websites idea could soon get out of hand - there must be
thousands out there. But probably only a hundred or so good ones. And to
be ruthless, exclude anything that even hints at being a "fan's website
about actors from the films".
I'll start a new thread, and this time I'll _crosspost_ to both AFT and
RABT (I can't remember if you said you have technical problems doing
this, but if you can, crossposting a single message is the best way to
post to both newsgroups, rather than posting two separate messages).
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> I liked Christopher's comments about various levels, quality versus
> quantity.
Glad you liked the comments! One thing I forgot was to contrast the
different mediums, and to compare the type of work done.
The media range from papers in peer-reviewed journals, and papers in
obscure professional journals, to papers in smaller magazines edited by
fans (though some are very professionally edited), to books published by
big publishing companies, to books self-published through small
publishing companies, to essays published online, collections of essays
on websites, FAQs on websites, and various other types of websites, and,
finally, stuff written in mailing lists, newsgroups and web-based
forums, ranging from small, private (ie. restricted) mailing lists, to
the completely open and (sometimes rather chaotic) Usenet newsgroups
(which is where this is appearing).
As for type of work, I began to touch on that above, with mention of
FAQs and contrasting papers with books, and papers wth essays, and
newsgroup posts with papers written for publication in a journal. But by
"type of work" I also mean that the work ranges from Tolkien editorial
work (editing and commentating on Tolkien's works - essentially
continuing and extending what Christopher Tolkien has done - examples
include the recent edition of Smith of Wootton Major, the collection of
Tolkien's draft essays and other notes on Beowulf, the forthcoming
'History of The Hobbit', and the linguistic material published over the
years), to normal editing (of collections of essays or editing a journal
like Tolkien Studies), to "normal" writing of papers, essays and books.
I mustn't forget those who write ground-breaking material that involves
extensive research at various Tolkien archives (Marquette and Bodleian),
and access to Tolkien's letters and whatnot - in this category I would
include the biographical writers (Carpenter and Garth and others - I
think there are others, but their names escape me). There is also, I
believe, a range of editorial work done behind the scenes as well, such
as the indexing and improved indexing of various books.
You also mentioned collectors. I was going to bring this up in the new
thread, but it seems appropriate here. The work done by Tolkien
collectors who publish various lists and stuff is immense, though it may
not be of immediate interest outside their field. Though sometimes the
massive collections become famous. One that I heard of recently was the
Richard E. Blackwelder collection. Looking at what he did reminds me
that he also worked to document and catalogue more obscure areas of
Tolkieniana, including (I think) newspaper cuttings and fanzines. Which
segues neatly into the work (or maybe "activity" is a better word for
this) done within fan societies and similar organisations, some of which
is documented in correspondence, newsletters and fan magazines and
bulletins.
Christopher Kreuzer
> Mic...@xenite.org wrote:
<snip>
Hey! Who let this thread degenerate into an "academic vs non-academic"
argument? Anything touching on that has to make clear that being a
"professor" means something different in the US than it does in the UK.
I'm not sure about other parts of the world.
But let's get back to talking about the actual Tolkien writers (let's
avoid this term 'scholar' if it is going to cause so much hassle - I
remember a thread a year or so ago where people argued about the meaning
of 'scholar' - yes, here it is (December 2004): see
http://tinyurl.com/erzy9 for the start of a discussion of the term
'fanatic', and see: http://tinyurl.com/fu3z3 for the start of the
'scholar' bit of that thread).
No-one's agreed yet with my inclusion of John Garth and John D. Rateliff
in the list of Tolkien writers (let's avoid the "top 10" thing as well -
that gets a bit silly). As far as I know, both of these writers fit the
mould of "independent scholar" that Drout was talking about in the link.
In other words, as far as I know, they are not working in academia (I
believe Garth is a journalist and that Rateliff does or has worked in
fantasy gaming circles - at least I found a bunch of essays by him on a
fantasy gaming website - I think it was something like Wizards.com), but
both have produced a range of excellent writings on Tolkien.
Maybe the list would be better if it was done alphabetically, and listed
one or two works that justified inclusion of said person on the list.
How about this (* = forthcoming):
Douglas Anderson (Annotated Hobbit)
Humphrey Carpenter (Biography, Letters)
Jane Chance (Tolkien's Art: A Mythology for England)
Michael Drout (Tolkien Studies, *Tolkien Encyclopedia, Beowulf)
Verlyn Flieger (Splintered Light, Interrupted Music, Question of Time)
John Garth (Tolkien and the Great War)
Wayne Hammond (Artist and Illustrator, Reader's Companion, *Guide)
Carl Hostetter (Vinyar Tengwar)
John D. Rateliff (*The History of The Hobbit)
Christina Scull (Artist and Illustrator, Reader's Companion, *Guide)
Tom Shippey (Road to ME, Author of the Century)
Christopher Tolkien (Silmarillion, UT, HoME)
David Bratman
Joe Christopher
Dan Timmons
Richard West
I've excluded the four above, as I couldn't find anything on Amazon
(except the Timmons-edited collection mentioned earlier). I'm sure they
have published essays and papers and so forth, but I think having
something concrete to point to is needed to be in the main list
(sorry!).
Though if we talk about published material, we get into grey areas.
There are several other "names" that have published books. An example is
David Salo's Gateway to Sindarin. How does that fit into the above?
Also, if you restrict the list purely to direct work on Tolkien
materials, and annotated versions of his books, then the more
wide-ranging "studies" start to drop off the list, including the ones by
Chance, Flieger and Shippey. The problem here is the question of which
ones to include, as there are many out there. Why include these three?
Are they any better than the others (requires a subjective judgement) or
were they (Flieger and Shippey) just the first to be widely known?
Stan Brown
<aj...@fuse.net>:
[upside-down full quoting corrected]
> "Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1f20aab67...@news.individual.net...
> > Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:37:07 -0400 from Warrior of Rohan
> > <aj...@fuse.net>:
> >> Okay, we got a good list of the "best" books about Tolkien /
> >> Middle-Earth.
> >
> > Does it still include David Day?
> Nope, I would not rate him anywhere near the top ten. But his books can be
> interesting even with the errors.
Well, of course not. But he was on the list of "best books" that
started this thread.
Larry Swain
> Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>>Mic...@xenite.org wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Hey! Who let this thread degenerate into an "academic vs non-academic"
> argument? Anything touching on that has to make clear that being a
> "professor" means something different in the US than it does in the UK.
> I'm not sure about other parts of the world.
Michael I think misunderstood my reaction to Troels' suggestion about
including Conrad et al in such a list, where I questioned (but made no
conclusions) about whether what we do here constitutes scholarship,
whatever that may mean. I think Michael understood me as saying that
scholarship means "academia", which it doesn't. But I agree, we needn't
go down that road.
> No-one's agreed yet with my inclusion of John Garth and John D. Rateliff
> in the list of Tolkien writers (let's avoid the "top 10" thing as well -
> that gets a bit silly). As far as I know, both of these writers fit the
> mould of "independent scholar" that Drout was talking about in the link.
> In other words, as far as I know, they are not working in academia (I
> believe Garth is a journalist and that Rateliff does or has worked in
> fantasy gaming circles - at least I found a bunch of essays by him on a
> fantasy gaming website - I think it was something like Wizards.com), but
> both have produced a range of excellent writings on Tolkien.
As far as I know the only thing that Garth has done was the one book. I
think longevity is a requirement. So I'd reject him, unless he's done
more on Tolkien than I think. (i. e. if we're going for the "top"
"scholars, experts, important people to read etc", however we want to
phrase it. If on the other hand we're just listing important people to
read and their works, then by all means.)
>
> Maybe the list would be better if it was done alphabetically, and listed
> one or two works that justified inclusion of said person on the list.
>
> How about this (* = forthcoming):
>
> Douglas Anderson (Annotated Hobbit)
> Humphrey Carpenter (Biography, Letters)
> Jane Chance (Tolkien's Art: A Mythology for England)
She's done more than this one, not including the edited collections
she's done.
> Michael Drout (Tolkien Studies, *Tolkien Encyclopedia, Beowulf)
> Verlyn Flieger (Splintered Light, Interrupted Music, Question of Time)
> John Garth (Tolkien and the Great War)
> Wayne Hammond (Artist and Illustrator, Reader's Companion, *Guide)
> Carl Hostetter (Vinyar Tengwar)
> John D. Rateliff (*The History of The Hobbit)
Ok, I'd include John too. He's written a number of good articles in
addition to the forthcoming book.
> Christina Scull (Artist and Illustrator, Reader's Companion, *Guide)
> Tom Shippey (Road to ME, Author of the Century)
> Christopher Tolkien (Silmarillion, UT, HoME)
>
> David Bratman
> Joe Christopher
> Dan Timmons
> Richard West
>
> I've excluded the four above, as I couldn't find anything on Amazon
> (except the Timmons-edited collection mentioned earlier). I'm sure they
> have published essays and papers and so forth, but I think having
> something concrete to point to is needed to be in the main list
> (sorry!).
Christopher!! For Shame!! Since when are published essays and papers
not concrete?!!??!! I think longevity in publishing, whether books,
essays, papers, or conference papers, and quality of overall work is
more important than whether a person has produced a book. By your
measure Tolkien was not much of a "scholar" never having produced a book
length study of any subject (his closest work on that score being his
editions and commentaries on various texts, but an edition isn't a
study.) I rather think his Monster and the Critics among other of his
works very important and "concrete" in spite of the fact that they are
merely published essays.
> Though if we talk about published material, we get into grey areas.
> There are several other "names" that have published books. An example is
> David Salo's Gateway to Sindarin. How does that fit into the above?
It shouldn't. Salo's book is as much Salo as it is Tolkien, what Salo
THINKS Sindarin should be.
> Also, if you restrict the list purely to direct work on Tolkien
> materials, and annotated versions of his books, then the more
> wide-ranging "studies" start to drop off the list, including the ones by
> Chance, Flieger and Shippey.
Whoa.....how for example is either of Shippey's works, (here we are
talking about his books on Tolkien, not articles: Road to Middle Earth
and Author of the Century) no "direct work on Tolkien?" NOt sure I
follow you there. Similarly with Chance and Flieger whose works deal
directly on Tolkien, Tolkien in a particular intellectual context or
literary tradition, but on Tolkien nonetheless. Or is this the
distinction that Michael wished to draw between "story-internals"
interpretation and discussions of sources, influences, analogues,
impact, audience reception?
The problem here is the question of which
> ones to include, as there are many out there. Why include these three?
> Are they any better than the others (requires a subjective judgement) or
> were they (Flieger and Shippey) just the first to be widely known?
In the case of Flieger and Shippey, they are among the best as far as
I'm concerned. I'd suggest the following criteria:
longevity (a single study, no matter the length and quality doesn't cut it)
quality (this isn't schlock or a throw away, but becomes a regular
reference tool. I think all of the authors I mentioned fall into that
class, and there are some others that I could include)
education--by which I mean that at least on the first reading of the
work(s) by the author, something new is learned about Tolkien rather
than a mere rehash of previous material or an unproven and unprovable
thesis.
These are debatable of course, but I toss them out for consideration.
Larry
Warrior of Rohan
listed. Some scholars/experts just speak!
Mike Foster is an example, he teaches a Tolkien course in Illinois. I think
he has written a few small papers but nothing major. Yet, he is very
knowledgeable on Tolkien. The same for John Garth. One book but a great
speaker. I have heard him twice and is very good and very knowledgeable!
Therefore, I included both John Garth and John Ratcliffe in my list.
I agree that the list should be alphabetical as I certainly do not want to
"rate" the top Tolkien scholars/experts/writer/whatever.
It sounds like Christopher or myself will start a thread about experts,
websites, collector etc.. We will try to define what each one constitutes
to set the ground rules. I have over 200 Tolkien related websites
bookmarked so it will be tough to pick only 10. Perhaps we'll sort them by
category such a scholastic, collecting, artwork etc. That way we can
include many of the regular contributors here which ought to stir things up
a bit.
WOR
"Larry Swain" <thes...@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:lJKdnZcvMqPX2STZ...@rcn.net...
Warrior of Rohan
am sure I can do it just need a little advice. I use Outlook Express as my
new reader.
Thanks
"Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b01ug.101611$wl.8...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Christopher Kreuzer
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
<snip>
>> No-one's agreed yet with my inclusion of John Garth and John D.
>> Rateliff in the list of Tolkien writers (let's avoid the "top 10"
>> thing as well - that gets a bit silly). As far as I know, both of
>> these writers fit the mould of "independent scholar" that Drout was
>> talking about in the link. In other words, as far as I know, they
>> are not working in academia (I believe Garth is a journalist and
>> that Rateliff does or has worked in fantasy gaming circles - at
>> least I found a bunch of essays by him on a fantasy gaming website -
>> I think it was something like Wizards.com), but both have produced a
>> range of excellent writings on Tolkien.
>
> As far as I know the only thing that Garth has done was the one book.
> I think longevity is a requirement. So I'd reject him, unless he's
> done more on Tolkien than I think.
He has done some papers as well, though maybe they were just teasers for
his book? Whether anything more is forthcoming, I don't know, though I
would hope so. I know others have started to look in more detail at
parts of Tolkien's life, for example the "Roots of Middle-earth" book I
mentioned that gives more background on the area where Tolkien grew up.
There is also that book about Tolkien's work at the OED (the 'Ring of
Words' one - I think you mentioned it recently; have you read that
yet?), and I think there has been more done on Tolkien's family
background (particularly the Suffields). But neither of these areas
really tie in with Tolkien's later work. What I liked about Garth's book
was the way it wasn't just a detailed biography of before, during and
after WW1, but it also discussed Tolkien's early works as well.
> (i. e. if we're going for the "top" "scholars, experts, important
people
> to read etc", however we want to phrase it. If on the other hand
we're
> just listing important people to read and their works, then by all
means.)
But what is the point of listing the "top" people in anything unless it
is to say "read what they've written"? I think quality is such a
subjective thing that you have to come up with more objective criteria.
In this case, you could try and predict the longevity of a work - will
people still be referring to this work in 10 years time?
>> Maybe the list would be better if it was done alphabetically, and
>> listed one or two works that justified inclusion of said person on
>> the list.
>>
>> How about this (* = forthcoming):
>>
>> Douglas Anderson (Annotated Hobbit)
>> Humphrey Carpenter (Biography, Letters)
>> Jane Chance (Tolkien's Art: A Mythology for England)
>
> She's done more than this one, not including the edited collections
> she's done.
Yes. You are right. I am beginning to think that volume (amount of work
published) is one of the better objective criteria.
>> Michael Drout (Tolkien Studies, *Tolkien Encyclopedia, Beowulf)
>> Verlyn Flieger (Splintered Light, Interrupted Music, Question of
>> Time) John Garth (Tolkien and the Great War)
>> Wayne Hammond (Artist and Illustrator, Reader's Companion, *Guide)
>> Carl Hostetter (Vinyar Tengwar)
>> John D. Rateliff (*The History of The Hobbit)
>
> Ok, I'd include John too. He's written a number of good articles in
> addition to the forthcoming book.
Yes. What is needed is a combined "papers" and "books" database, and
then that can be sorted by author to see who has authored the most
number of items (be they books or papers or whatever). I remember noting
with some surprise when reviewing the first volume of Tolkien Studies
that the bibliography of Tolkien studies for a single year (or was it
two?) that appeared in that issue, gave none other than J. R. R. Tolkien
as the person who had "published" most in that period. It seems that
even from the grave, the Professor's output of new editions, etc, is
sizeable.
>> Christina Scull (Artist and Illustrator, Reader's Companion, *Guide)
>> Tom Shippey (Road to ME, Author of the Century)
>> Christopher Tolkien (Silmarillion, UT, HoME)
>>
>> David Bratman
>> Joe Christopher
>> Dan Timmons
>> Richard West
>>
>> I've excluded the four above, as I couldn't find anything on Amazon
>> (except the Timmons-edited collection mentioned earlier). I'm sure
>> they have published essays and papers and so forth, but I think
>> having something concrete to point to is needed to be in the main
>> list (sorry!).
>
> Christopher!! For Shame!! Since when are published essays and papers
> not concrete?!!??!!
Sorry. I was wrong to say that. Published papers and essays are of
course fine. I guess I was reacting to the difficulty of checking and
finding such things (I was being lazy and just searching for books on
Amazon). Could you add something here? Are there people who publish
papers year after year?
It would be nice though if there was one unified list to pull up details
on. I know an updated bibliography for Tom Shippey appeared in the first
volume of Tolkien Studies, and that was impressively long.
> I think longevity in publishing, whether books,
> essays, papers, or conference papers, and quality of overall work is
> more important than whether a person has produced a book.
Agreed.
<snip>
>> Though if we talk about published material, we get into grey areas.
>> There are several other "names" that have published books. An
>> example is David Salo's Gateway to Sindarin. How does that fit into
>> the above?
>
> It shouldn't. Salo's book is as much Salo as it is Tolkien, what Salo
> THINKS Sindarin should be.
So you are not tempted to do what Drout did with his bibliography and
just exclude linguistic stuff as "outside the author's area of
expertise"? I think any database or list should try and be completely
comprehensive. Excluding "film" stuff of course! :-)
>> Also, if you restrict the list purely to direct work on Tolkien
>> materials, and annotated versions of his books, then the more
>> wide-ranging "studies" start to drop off the list, including the
>> ones by Chance, Flieger and Shippey.
>
> Whoa.....how for example is either of Shippey's works, (here we are
> talking about his books on Tolkien, not articles: Road to Middle Earth
> and Author of the Century) no "direct work on Tolkien?" NOt sure I
> follow you there.
What I meant here was a distinction between interpretations of Tolkien's
writings, and analysis. I agree the two merge somewhat, and I suppose
Shippey is more analysis than interpretation - in particular, an
analysis of the philology of the work. I find some of Flieger's work to
be more interpretative, in the sense of attempting to relate Tolkien's
work to other things. The former approach can be scientific, while the
latter is more imaginative. Does that make any more sense? (I'm not
entirely sure it does.)
> Similarly with Chance and Flieger whose works deal
> directly on Tolkien, Tolkien in a particular intellectual context or
> literary tradition, but on Tolkien nonetheless. Or is this the
> distinction that Michael wished to draw between "story-internals"
> interpretation and discussions of sources, influences, analogues,
> impact, audience reception?
No. I wasn't talking about story-internal stuff.
> The problem here is the question of which
>> ones to include, as there are many out there. Why include these
>> three? Are they any better than the others (requires a subjective
>> judgement) or were they (Flieger and Shippey) just the first to be
>> widely known?
>
> In the case of Flieger and Shippey, they are among the best as far as
> I'm concerned. I'd suggest the following criteria:
>
> longevity (a single study, no matter the length and quality doesn't
> cut it) quality
But then what about Carpenter, who only did Biography (I don't think you
can count Letters, as that was an editorial role). I suppose you could
throw in the Inklings biography as well.
> (this isn't schlock or a throw away, but becomes a
> regular reference tool. I think all of the authors I mentioned fall
> into that class, and there are some others that I could include)
"regular reference tool" sounds like an objective criteria.
> education--by which I mean that at least on the first reading of the
> work(s) by the author, something new is learned about Tolkien rather
> than a mere rehash of previous material or an unproven and unprovable
> thesis.
I'd call this "originality".
> These are debatable of course, but I toss them out for consideration.
I'd add volume as well, which might be what you mean by longevity. I
assume you don't mean a minimum time period by longevity, though
publishing over many years is good, publishing lots in a few years is
just as good.
So, a "top" Tolkien scholar will have:
1) Produced a sizeable volume of papers/books over several years.
2) Had the quality of their work confirmed by numerous positive comments
and numerous references to their works by other writers.
3) Have produced original material, breaking new ground in Tolkien
studies and inspiring more studies in certain areas.
The output of each person on the list could be discussed in terms of
these criteria, plus a closer look at the _type_ of work undertaken.
Some of it is very worthwhile, but requires more in terms of
organisation and editorial skill, rather than originality. But that
would require reading everything a particular person has written, and I
haven't done that for any of the people on the list. I guess reading
more stuff would be good before attempting any sort of overview! :-)
I do like the way each volume of Tolkien Studies has been "showcasing" a
particular scholar, with a bibliography of their works. It was Tom
Shippey in volume 1. I can't remember who was showcased in volumes 2 and
3 <rummage> ah! it was Richard C. West in volume 2. Though they seem to
have dropped the idea of a lead article for volume 3.
Christopher Kreuzer
> to be listed. Some scholars/experts just speak!
>
> Mike Foster is an example, he teaches a Tolkien course in Illinois.
Good point. Speakers should be acknowledged in some way as well.
> It sounds like Christopher or myself will start a thread about
> experts, websites, collector etc.. We will try to define what each
> one constitutes to set the ground rules. I have over 200 Tolkien
> related websites bookmarked so it will be tough to pick only 10.
> Perhaps we'll sort them by category such a scholastic, collecting,
> artwork etc. That way we can include many of the regular
> contributors here which ought to stir things up a bit.
I'll make a start now (I forgot earlier).
Christopher
PS. You might want to snip out what you are not replying to, and also
not top-post, otherwise the Shirrifs will be after you! :-)
Warrior of Rohan
> Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
>
> Yes. What is needed is a combined "papers" and "books" database, and
> then that can be sorted by author to see who has authored the most
> number of items (be they books or papers or whatever). I remember noting
> with some surprise when reviewing the first volume of Tolkien Studies
> that the bibliography of Tolkien studies for a single year (or was it
> two?) that appeared in that issue, gave none other than J. R. R. Tolkien
> as the person who had "published" most in that period. It seems that
> even from the grave, the Professor's output of new editions, etc, is
> sizeable.
>
>>> I am currently working on a "books" database, once it is done? I could
>>> add in the various papers and journals as well.
>>> But once I have this database (done in Access), I have to figure out a
>>> good way to make it available on the net. I am sure I will find
>>> somebody to help me with that task.
>>
>> longevity (a single study, no matter the length and quality doesn't
>> cut it) quality
>
> But then what about Carpenter, who only did Biography (I don't think you
> can count Letters, as that was an editorial role). I suppose you could
> throw in the Inklings biography as well.
>
>>> Same reason I did not include Carpenter in my list. He did one book and
>>> disappeared as far as Tolkien goes.
>>> I hope this post looks better than before. I am still learning the
>>> rules. What is a top post? I don't want the Shirrif's after me. :-)
WOR
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
>>>> I am currently working on a "books" database, once it is done? I
>>>> could add in the various papers and journals as well.
>>>> But once I have this database (done in Access), I have to figure
>>>> out a good way to make it available on the net. I am sure I will
>>>> find somebody to help me with that task.
Not sure what's up with the huge number of idents (the ">" bits) in your
replies, but about this database, I'd try and find out what is out there
already. There is little point in trying to do something like this from
scratch - it would involve an enormous amount of copying and pasting and
typing. My idea is to go to people in the Tolkien books trade who
probably have details of lots of Tolkien books on their computer, and
get a list from then. What we could do is usefully sort it into types of
books and add some brief notes.
>>>> I hope this post looks better than before. I am still learning the
>>>> rules. What is a top post? I don't want the Shirrif's after me. :-)
Stan Brown has some good pages on newsgroup etiquette.
See: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm
In particular: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#xpost
and: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#trim (plus the next bit as
well, on posting right side up - you mostly do OK, it's just
ocassionally you seem to lapse into not trimming and top-posting).
Stan Brown
<aj...@fuse.net>:
> Christopher, could you email me off post to explain cross posting to me. I
> am sure I can do it just need a little advice. I use Outlook Express as my
> new reader.
Perhaps you might also consider quoting in standard fashion, and
trimming quotes.
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm is one starting point.
Troels Forchhammer
>
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>> In message <news:uuSdnb6efP9_SSjZ...@rcn.net> Larry
>> Swain <thes...@operamail.com> enriched us with:
>>>
>>> Warrior of Rohan wrote:
>>>>
<snip>
>> I don't know David Bratman and Dan Timmons, and I'm naturally
>> curious about what they've done ;-)
>
> David Bratman is a long time member of the Mythopoeic Society
[...]
>
> Dan Timmons was a young scholar who wrote several very perceptive
> essays on Tolkien and co-edited with George Clark one of my top 10
> books,
[...]
Thanks.
> Jane Chance should be up there too,
<re-arrange>
>> And what about experts on Tolkien's professional work? Though not
>> strictly a line of Tolkien scholarship (specializing in one man's
>> contributions to the field would seem a bit limited to me), but
>> still.
>
> Well, when asked about top ten Tolkien scholars I assumed that
> meant also on his professional works. Shippey, Timmons, Drout,
> Chance, Flieger, and Anderson have all published on Tolkien's
> professional work.
> Flieger in fact has continued some of Tolkien's professional
> work on the Ancrene Wisse. And there is the new "Ring of Words"
> book's authors too--can't wait to get that one!
And thanks for that as well. I'm getting more and more interested in
the other angles on Tolkien's works, but am daunted by both the
amount and the specialization of it. I've downloaded volume 1 of
"Tolkien Studies" (it's available legitimately), where a lot of the
names you list figure as authors, so I'll be attacking that soon (the
problem is to find the time between family, CotW and making a
pretence at doing the work I'm paid to do <GG>). I'm looking forward
to that, but may come screaming here for help if it proves too
specialized ;-)
>> and someone to represent the kind of studies we usually
>> undertake here (the 'story-internal explanation'
[...]
>
> Yes, I considered that too. In my own mind I debate whether the
> sorts of discussions we undertake here or in other fora on the
> 'Net count as "scholarship", and go back and forth on the
> question.
I'll address this part of the discussion in an independent posting,
once I find the time (I could /REALLY/ do with a Gandalfian excursion
'out of time' to catch up with AFT/RABT <GG>). I find the question
very interesting, but will have to spend some time composing an
answer worthy of the question.
>> Perhaps also a cartographer -- Karen Wynn Fonstad,
[...}
>
> Well, H&S were to be considered a single entry. Fonstad is good,
> but is she top 10? Top 15 or 20, sure, but top 10?
How does one make the comparison? I am more comfortable allowing at
least one entry for the 'best in class' for each area rather than
trying to rank Tolkien cartography against Tolkien biography . . .
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
"It would seem that you have no useful skill or talent
whatsoever," he said. "Have you thought of going into
teaching?"
- /Mort/ (Terry Pratchett)
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> I am more comfortable allowing at
> least one entry for the 'best in class' for each area rather than
> trying to rank Tolkien cartography against Tolkien biography . . .
This "best in class" works for books, but for writers you can pick out
those who have made the most impact in terms of amount, quality and
originality. And this is regardless of specialities. If someone writes
one really good book in a particular speciality, then it is the book
(and author) that gets the plaudits, rather than the whole range of that
author's work. Think of it as a "lifetime's achievement" award for a
range of work over a lifetime, rather than a nomination for any
particular work.
Larry Swain
> My original thread said that they did not have to have written a book to be
> listed. Some scholars/experts just speak!
True, but then the measure becomes a subjective one entirely. Yes,
there's always some subjectivity to it, but if we're looking at
publications, then there can be some measure of objectivity, as well as
discussion. If you hear someone speak and think it really good, and no
one else hears it, well, it may make your top 10 or 20 or 100, but will
never appear on mine.
Christopher Kreuzer
This leads me to strange musings on how this kind of forum is sometimes
more like speaking on a soapbox than "publishing" anything, even though,
theoretically, anyone can read what is posted, though, in fact, you can
never be sure who is listening.
The Hyde Park Corner of online Tolkien fandom??
With the Google archive acting like a dictaphone in the corner!
Oh dear. I can see the cartoon now!
Larry Swain
> Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>>Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
>
>>
>>As far as I know the only thing that Garth has done was the one book.
>>I think longevity is a requirement. So I'd reject him, unless he's
>>done more on Tolkien than I think.
>
>
> He has done some papers as well, though maybe they were just teasers for
> his book? Whether anything more is forthcoming, I don't know, though I
> would hope so. I know others have started to look in more detail at
> parts of Tolkien's life, for example the "Roots of Middle-earth" book I
> mentioned that gives more background on the area where Tolkien grew up.
> There is also that book about Tolkien's work at the OED (the 'Ring of
> Words' one - I think you mentioned it recently; have you read that
> yet?)
I haven't, though I very much want to. Every time I've gone to the
local stores to pick it up, they don't have it even though they say its
in. So come fall, I'll take things in hand and include in my annual
huge book order to start the school year.
and I think there has been more done on Tolkien's family
> background (particularly the Suffields). But neither of these areas
> really tie in with Tolkien's later work. What I liked about Garth's book
> was the way it wasn't just a detailed biography of before, during and
> after WW1, but it also discussed Tolkien's early works as well.
>
>
>>(i. e. if we're going for the "top" "scholars, experts, important
>
> people
>
>>to read etc", however we want to phrase it. If on the other hand
>
> we're
>
>>just listing important people to read and their works, then by all
>
> means.)
>
> But what is the point of listing the "top" people in anything unless it
> is to say "read what they've written"?
I think I've not made myself clear. I'm only pointing out that I
wouldn't yet include Garth on a list of top 10 because he has produced
only the one book, and that book hasn't made a significant impact on how
Tolkien's primary works are understood. Time may change that as he
either produces more, or the impact of the book deepens and widens. On
the other hand, if we're simply listing good, and important, books to
read on TOlkien, and not limiting ourselves to "top 10" or "top 20"
kinds of enumerations, then I'd include Garth and his book since his
work clarifies much about TOlkien the man and sets a better context of
Tolkien's early imaginiative works than we have hitherto had.
>>>
>>>Douglas Anderson (Annotated Hobbit)
>>>Humphrey Carpenter (Biography, Letters)
>>>Jane Chance (Tolkien's Art: A Mythology for England)
>>
>>She's done more than this one, not including the edited collections
>>she's done.
>
>
> Yes. You are right. I am beginning to think that volume (amount of work
> published) is one of the better objective criteria.
>
>
>>>Michael Drout (Tolkien Studies, *Tolkien Encyclopedia, Beowulf)
>>>Verlyn Flieger (Splintered Light, Interrupted Music, Question of
>>>Time) John Garth (Tolkien and the Great War)
>>>Wayne Hammond (Artist and Illustrator, Reader's Companion, *Guide)
>>>Carl Hostetter (Vinyar Tengwar)
>>>John D. Rateliff (*The History of The Hobbit)
>>
>>Ok, I'd include John too. He's written a number of good articles in
>>addition to the forthcoming book.
>
>
> Yes. What is needed is a combined "papers" and "books" database, and
> then that can be sorted by author to see who has authored the most
> number of items (be they books or papers or whatever).
I would agree, but that would take a great deal of work. SOmeone would
need to be willing to take West's bibliography up 1978,(there was an
updated edition in 1990 or 1991, but I'm not sure how far the new
edition carried things: did it stop at 1978 or did they carry it through
the decade of the 80s? I shoud find it and find out.... and Drout's
online bib to 2000, plus the bibliographies printed in other journals
such as TS and collate them all into a single database. (And a new bib
I've just found out about the last few days: A Tolkien Bibliography
1911-1980: Writings by and about J.R.R. Tolkien. Åke Jonsson. Tredge
Upplagen, 1986 and .R.R. Tolkien: Six Decades of Criticism. Judith
Johnson. Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut/London, England, 1986. )
A worthy project, but who has such love and time and resources?
I remember noting
> with some surprise when reviewing the first volume of Tolkien Studies
> that the bibliography of Tolkien studies for a single year (or was it
> two?) that appeared in that issue, gave none other than J. R. R. Tolkien
> as the person who had "published" most in that period. It seems that
> even from the grave, the Professor's output of new editions, etc, is
> sizeable.
Yes, it seemed like the late 90s, early 00s brought a spate of reissues
and new editions...well, the 50th anniversary and the movies naturally
gave rise to this, but it was interesting nonetheless.
>
>>>Christina Scull (Artist and Illustrator, Reader's Companion, *Guide)
>>>Tom Shippey (Road to ME, Author of the Century)
>>>Christopher Tolkien (Silmarillion, UT, HoME)
>>>
>>>David Bratman
>>>Joe Christopher
>>>Dan Timmons
>>>Richard West
>>>
>>>I've excluded the four above, as I couldn't find anything on Amazon
>>>(except the Timmons-edited collection mentioned earlier). I'm sure
>>>they have published essays and papers and so forth, but I think
>>>having something concrete to point to is needed to be in the main
>>>list (sorry!).
>>
>>Christopher!! For Shame!! Since when are published essays and papers
>>not concrete?!!??!!
>
>
> Sorry. I was wrong to say that. Published papers and essays are of
> course