I've spoken with Paulies on PM and clarified my misunderstanding of a separate post he made overnight. My apologies to him, he wasn't calling this site an "idiots village".

I think the discussion is progressing in a more civilized tone now, thanks everyone for clarifying your positions, reducing making sweeping generalizations, and listening and responding to each others' positions.

Please continue!

Paulies wrote:
Also, I do like some of the secondary books like David Day, Robert Foster and Tom Shippey, and own books by those authors I don't personally see the point of a readers companion included as part of a box set, I think that should be optional for those who like an analysis or a commentary. What I hate is all the obscure things like finding god in tlotr or a christians journey through middle earth, its sneaky preaching and they are leeching of JRRT's name. I find Humphrey Carpenter's Letters of JRRT invaluable, maybe I should have been more specific.

Not too many David Day fans around here, for reasons referred to higher up in the thread. He seems a prime example of someone who regurgitates poorly researched material under different cover names over and over again just for "fleecing the uninformed" as Stu put it.

With your comment about the Reader's Companion being included in a boxed set - both are available separately (The Lord of the Rings in many, many, many formats of course), so I do feel it is "optional for those who like an analysis or a commentary".

Lord of the Rings Reader's Companion on Amazon.co.uk

I tink I'm biased with David Day as I like the style of art in the big hobbit one he did.

There is good art in some of his books, agreed! (I am not sure, but I don't think any of it is Day's art, he's just the author).

Dismissing or disdaining Tolkien's statement that The Lord of the Rings is a "fundamentally" Catholic work is just as (un)wise as dismissing his statement that it is an extended exercise in linguistic aesthetic. The latter has been more than amply shown to be true (and greatly deepened the appreciation of Tolkien's oeuvre in the process); the former has also been shown to be true (with the same implication: see The Flame Imperishable).

You don't have to see or heed either, or course. But to disdain others for seeing or heeding them is, well, arrogant at best.

Aelfwine wrote:
Dismissing or disdaining Tolkien's statement that The Lord of the Rings is a "fundamentally" Catholic work is just as (un)wise as dismissing his statement that it is an extended exercise in linguistic aesthetic. The latter has been more than amply shown to be true (and greatly deepened the appreciation of Tolkien's oeuvre in the process); the former has also been shown to be true (with the same implication: see The Flame Imperishable).

You don't have to see or heed either, or course. But to disdain others for seeing or heeding them is, well, arrogant at best.

I'm not sure why you are comparing my lack of interest in Tolkien's Catholicism (or Catholic influences in his work) to "dismissing his statement that it is an extended exercise in linguistic aesthetic"? Given I have never made such a statement, that seems odd. This is what you always do - address one statement with the implication that another statement was made. It is as bad a habit as my arrogance.

Clearly I accept that Tolkien's work had Catholic influences; I just find them to be of no interest whatsoever (I've been reasonably clear on my opinion of organised religion). I was, however, incorrect to state that they aren't worthy of investigation by anyone. That was a flawed statement to make, and I accept it fully.

And....

onthetrail rightfully points out

allowing a member here to describe him as an idiot while getting bent out of shape for thinking it was aimed at anybody at TCG screams of double standards.

This is quite correct. My apologies for my bad judgement yesterday in letting the other post stand, calling anyone an idiot (no matter if they are here or elsewhere) for sharing their views on Tolkien's works should not be permitted here. This one is on me.