Books about Tolkien

Paulies wrote:
Is anyone else getting fed up of all the books about Tolkien, encyclopedias, how to read Tolkien I mean the other day I saw one called a Christians Journey through middle earth and a readers companion. Its not rocket science it's the Lord of the rings and if you get confused Tolkien included appendices, I'm just getting fed up of all the leeching off his name, they even include a companion with the box set of the Lord of the Rings.
Grumpy old man rant :) 39 this year and I get grumpier by the day.

90% of these kind of books are indeed pointless, IMHO. The Hammond & Scull volumes are actually rather good though (and are "official", as it were). But I do wonder what happened to just reading the stories and being happy with them without the need to deconstruct and analyse.

Well, I do enjoy talking with others about Tolkien's books, so reading is just an extension of that. It is quite a rare author that has books being written about them - the publishers continue to produce them, because they sell, generally quite well.

I do agree that there is a lot of haystack to get through to find the needles, but they are certainly worth finding and reading.

I like the Robert Foster guide and if I'm honest I like David Day's stuff and the official biography by Humphrey Carter but the stuff that really makes my eyes roll is things like finding god in the Lord of the rings and the clickbait equivalent, they some how imply there's a hidden meaning to be found, JRRT even said and had to specifically say in the 2nd edition foreword that there is no hidden meaning. Any questions can be answered in the letters of JRRT and the histories of Middle Earth and the Unfinished tales so unless some of these guides have a definitive answer to who Tom Bombadil is then I don't see the point.

Paulies wrote:
I like the Robert Foster guide and if I'm honest I like David Day's stuff and the official biography by Humphrey Carter but the stuff that really makes my eyes roll is things like finding god in the Lord of the rings and the clickbait equivalent, they some how imply there's a hidden meaning to be found, JRRT even said and had to specifically say in the 2nd edition foreword that there is no hidden meaning. Any questions can be answered in the letters of JRRT and the histories of Middle Earth and the Unfinished tales so unless some of these guides have a definitive answer to who Tom Bombadil is then I don't see the point.

The Catholics love to make a meal out of Tolkien's one statement about it being "fundamentally Catholic" (or similar). That drives many pointless books, sadly.

I honestly don't mind someone taking a statement made by Tolkien, and pulling on the thread to see where it leads them. Tolkien did say "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion’, to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism. However that is very clumsily put, and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little;"

So, what did he mean by that? There's no harm in speculating, or declaring as a reader what "you" found fundamentally Catholic in the book... it doesn't change what Tolkien wrote, it doesn't need to be read if you aren't interested in the topic, and it could lead to interesting discussion about the interconnectedness of fantasy and religion for those who care to participate.

Urulöké wrote:
I honestly don't mind someone taking a statement made by Tolkien, and pulling on the thread to see where it leads them. Tolkien did say "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion’, to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism. However that is very clumsily put, and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little;"

So, what did he mean by that? There's no harm in speculating, or declaring as a reader what "you" found fundamentally Catholic in the book... it doesn't change what Tolkien wrote, it doesn't need to be read if you aren't interested in the topic, and it could lead to interesting discussion about the interconnectedness of fantasy and religion for those who care to participate.

But honestly, your paragraph above is the entire amount of analysis the subject warrants (purely IMHO, of course!). That said, I like to try and ignore that Tolkien was Catholic. Without wanting to offend anyone, it does lower my respect for him a bit, as I feel he was intelligent and educated enough that he should not have been suckered into any organised religion. Why would he ascribe more veracity to Catholic fiction than Norse fiction? They are both clearly not historical fact. Why believe in one God over many gods?

I prefer to just leave that aspect of him to one side and enjoy the written material for what it is (and it certainly does not *appear* to be remotely religious, so I'm fine with it). I have noticed a tendency for Catholics to jump on this topic at every opportunity. If their faith is so strong, I'm not sure why they need to hold up the faith apparently displayed by others to bolster their own.

Stu wrote:
Without wanting to offend anyone, it does lower my respect for him a bit, as I feel he was intelligent and educated enough that he should not have been suckered into any organised religion. Why would he ascribe more veracity to Catholic fiction than Norse fiction? They are both clearly not historical fact. Why believe in one God over many gods?

You can say you don’t want to offend someone, but by then immediately proceeding to call their core belief system a fiction you are certainly throwing a punch meant to land.

I’m not trying to fire up a religious discussion here beyond what I posted before - that certainly feels like it belongs on another forum. I do feel that Tolkien could defend his beliefs quite strongly if he were around to do so. I’m glad he focused so much of his life on Middle-earth, which brings me so much joy. Let’s try to focus on what sparks joy for us here if we can.

Urulöké wrote:

Stu wrote:
Without wanting to offend anyone, it does lower my respect for him a bit, as I feel he was intelligent and educated enough that he should not have been suckered into any organised religion. Why would he ascribe more veracity to Catholic fiction than Norse fiction? They are both clearly not historical fact. Why believe in one God over many gods?

You can say you don’t want to offend someone, but by then immediately proceeding to call their core belief system a fiction you are certainly throwing a punch meant to land.

I’m not trying to fire up a religious discussion here beyond what I posted before - that certainly feels like it belongs on another forum. I do feel that Tolkien could defend his beliefs quite strongly if he were around to do so. I’m glad he focused so much of his life on Middle-earth, which brings me so much joy. Let’s try to focus on what sparks joy for us here if we can.

Sure, that's fair -- it is probably not for here. I'm afraid I can only approach the world in an evidence-based manner. For me, anything without the benefit of supporting evidence is just fiction and indoctrination. Not meaning to offend you, I just side with the 50% of the [Edit: developed] world with that viewpoint, not with the 50% with the other viewpoint. And anyone with the opposing viewpoint should be strong enough in their belief to not be offended, the same as I'm not offended when religious people tell me I'm going to hell (I had a Catholic girlfriend at one point, whose father was a lay preacher...). But, not for here.

I wholly disagree with a lot of what has been said on this thread.

I don't see why Paulies has such an antagonist attitude towards secondary literature on Tolkien. It is fine to personally not like books about Tolkien, but I'm not sure a lot is gained from ranting about it, unless, of course, you are looking for others to agree with you or you are trying to pick a fight.

Please remember that some of the "books about Tolkien" that are being dismissed outright (without ever having been read) were written by members of TCG--Hammond, Scull, and Hostetter come to mind.

To answer your question: "Is anyone else getting fed up of all the books about Tolkien?"

No. I'm glad that Tolkien scholars continue to explore the many vistas of Tolkien's imaginative landscape. In addition to the three scholars mentioned above, Rateliff, Garth, Flieger, and Shippey (to name a few) have contributed considerably to our understanding of Tolkien's legendarium. More books about Tolkien are going to continue to be written, and I'm glad for that!

"I'm just getting fed up of all the leeching off his name"--you've gotten it all wrong here. The majority of those writing about Tolkien are doing so from a place of admiration or appreciation--just as many on this forum collect Tolkien's books for the same reason. Scholars, of course, show it in a different way.

The irony is the main writer "leeching off [Tolkien's] name" is the infamous David Day ("I like David Day's stuff") who continues to republish the same essential material with different titles. For more on David Day, see here: http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/David_Day

Stu, you obviously have strong negative feelings about Tolkien's Catholicism, but you are greatly oversimplifying the extent to which Tolkien's Catholicism influenced The Lord of the Rings.

To quote Tolkien, "Frodo (Vol. I, p. 208) and Sam both invoke [Elbereth] in moments of extreme peril. The Elves sing hymns to her. (These and other references to religion in The Lord of the Rings are frequently overlooked.)" (emphasis mine)

Tolkien's use of religion is more complex and nuanced than you are suggesting.