I want to know who at the Tolkien Society "banned" Day, when, and what the "ban" means. That's really the issue, isn't it? Is the Society saying that certain types of people who have the money to join may not do so? Hadn't they better spell out their policy if that is so? If anyone may join who can pony up the money, is there a policy saying that members who offend against certain prohibitions may not be published in Society periodicals, and/or may be forbidden entrance at Society events?

That's the sort of thing I want cleared up. Saying something is "banned "often uses the word imprecisely and emotionally, quite often in the States at least, from my observation, e.g. the American Library Association's "Banned Books Week." I dislike seeing language in inflammatory but unjustified ways. Has the TS actually "banned" anyone? If Day says he is banned, does the Society confirm this? If so, is Day the only person? Then let's have some transparency: who made the decision? What right of appeal if any did Day have?

Dale Nelson wrote:

I want to know who at the Tolkien Society "banned" Day, when, and what the "ban" means. That's really the issue, isn't it? Is the Society saying that certain types of people who have the money to join may not do so? Hadn't they better spell out their policy if that is so? If anyone may join who can pony up the money, is there a policy saying that members who offend against certain prohibitions may not be published in Society periodicals, and/or may be forbidden entrance at Society events?

That's the sort of thing I want cleared up. Saying something is "banned "often uses the word imprecisely and emotionally, quite often in the States at least, from my observation, e.g. the American Library Association's "Banned Books Week." I dislike seeing language in inflammatory but unjustified ways. Has the TS actually "banned" anyone? If Day says he is banned, does the Society confirm this? If so, is Day the only person? Then let's have some transparency: who made the decision? What right of appeal if any did Day have?

The Tolkien Gateway entry lists the information from the minutes of the Tolkien Society meetings. https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/David_Day . It appears to have nothing to do with "certain types of people" or who can afford to go to Oxenmoot. It also does not seem to have anything to do with offending "certain prohibitions" etc. It seems like as simple as he attended Oxenmoot without paying the conference fee. When they asked him to pay it, he refused and was blacklisted. If you want to know if the blacklisting is still current I would think you'd need to inquire with the Tolkien Society about his status.

Amon Hen mentions of David Day:

#40 (Aug 1979) - Advertisement for A Tolkien Bestiary, available from the TS sales manager
#41 (Oct 1979) - TB listed in "Books of Interest" and "review forthcoming"
#43 (Jan 1980) - Corrects David Day saying Bombadil is a Maia
#70 (Nov 1984) - Review of Castles, which mentions it is by "David Day, the author of the much-praised Tolkien Bestiary"
#110 (Jul 1991) - "look out for Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopedia" announcement
#114 (Mar 1992) - Review of T:IE. Mentions that many entries and illustrations have been lifted from Bestiary. Final conclusion is "well written and presented and I think it will prove wholly successful."
#120 (Mar 1993) - Tolkien's Ring mentioned as forthcoming in October. David Day listed in the "welcome new members" report.
#129 (Nov 1994) - Review of Tolkien's Ring -

In the author's own words, "Tolkien's Ring is a kind o f literary detective's casebook that amounts to an investigation of the imagination of J R R Tolkien." The author may have set out to write such a book; however, if so, he signally failed to complete his task.... The author's worst failing, however, is his seeming lack of familiarity with Tolkien's works; this despite his three earlier books on them.... The format of this work makes it very much a coffee-table book. Its content ensures that the coffee-table is where it will stay.

#144 (Mar 1997) - The Hobbit Companion mentioned as forthcoming in June. (Later issues have it available from the TS store)
#147 (Sep 1997) - Discussion of the troubles getting Companion published and the move from HarperCollins to Pavilion Books.
#181 (May 2003) - Review of The Hobbit Companion (Pavilion Books).

unless you have the eyes of Legolas or a decent magnifying glass, it is not possible to read the book comfortably.... The book is illustrated throughout by Lidia Postman, who gives the impression that she has not read the books she is illustrating.... This book may contain some useful information, but ceases to be a useful item owing to the information being too difficult to access.

#191 (Jan 2005) - David Day attended Oxonmoot without paying. Committee Notes:

has also written to David Day to ask him to pay his registration for Oxonmoot. She was Instructed by the meeting to keep badgering him about this, since he seems to feel his "celebrity" status exempts him from such mundane details.

#193 (May 2005) - David Day is blacklisted from future events. Committee Notes:

Since David Day has still not paid his registration for Oxonmoot, it was agreed that he should be blacklisted for future events.

Also contains a letter defending Tolkien's Ring as having "a great deal that is thought provoking and novel."
#254 (Jul 2015) - Tolkien: A Dictionary review.

The sloppiness of this edition is staggering. Not content to just re-issue text that first appeared in his A Tolkien Bestiary in 1979, Day (or his publishers) haven’t even bothered to update the text since 1993.... I have never encountered a Tolkien book with so many easily-identifiable errors.... there is no distinction between what Tolkien wrote and what Day thinks.... There are, however, some areas of praise for this book. The tone and style of the text, albeit flawed, is very accessible to the casual reader and does offer a basic introduction to Arda.... I could forgive the errors in the book if David Day hadn’t allowed them to persist for up to 35 years. I came away feeling that Day’s primary motivation was to sell as many books as possible rather than educate people accurately about Tolkien’s Middle-earth.... Absolutely not recommended.

#267 (Sep 2017) - Review of The Battles of Tolkien.

One of the surprises to me is that this book contains genuinely new content; this isn’t just a rehashing of previous books. And the factual pieces of information on the battles and the characters are accurate: it was a pleasant surprise to me to find none of the painfully obvious errors that were common throughout the previous two books.... this book does not tell you about the battles in Tolkien’s works beyond simply their existence. The book should be called David Day’s musings on what might have inspired the battles in Tolkien’s works.... I approached it with positivity and enthusiasm for new ideas. But all I got instead was a bunch of clichéd theories that failed to stretch beyond a child pointing at things and exclaiming “This is like that!”.

I think it is pretty clear what the "ban" means from the above. I have heard that he was approached in person at the Oxonmoot about the non-payment issue, and he just smiled and walked away.

Well, that information explains the situation then -- assuming that he has never yet paid up. Thanks.

All really interesting guys. Thanks for helping me and hopefully others in this. I can see it's been historically well discussed!

Having been warned off, I have not ventured to waste (or spend) money on any David Day book myself, but I have read reviews that have quoted some of the more egregious entries, and I have leafed through and read some random entries in bookshops and libraries. There, I have encountered nothing to abuse me of the general sentiment that Day's early (pre-2017) books are marked more by his inventiveness than by any deep knowledge of Tolkien's works.

It would appear from various reviews that The Battles of Tolkien (2017) and possibly later books have seen some effort at correcting the worst errors and mistakes – rather late to be correcting mistakes that have been repeated in numerous works since 1979 – including a number of glaring errors that it would not have required the History of Middle-earth to discover and correct.

Urulókë had already posted about Day's refusal to pay for attending Oxonmoot in 2004 (despite repeated approaches by the Tolkien Society about it – he was never an invited guest of the Oxonmoot), and I need not go further into that incident (which is, in any case, before my own membership of the society). Friends of mine who attended the 2004 Oxonmoot have described his presence there in terms that could be politely summarised as “unpleasant”.

I have, however, also seen Day get into a spat with a reviewer (a Tolkien scholar with published articles in peer-reviewed collections) in the Amazon website review comments for one of his books. The review pointed out errors that had not been corrected, and generally recommended staying away from the book, and Day responded aggressively, turning to both arrogance and insult. Day's response was, however, removed from the Amazon website shortly after, leaving no trace of Day's response (had I posted what he did, I would also prefer for any evidence to disappear).


So, to summarise ....

Day has, as the only person ever, been blacklisted from participating in future Tolkien Society events due to his consistent refusal to pay for attending Oxonmoot 2004.

Day has been offensive and arrogant in on-line responses to his detractors.

Day has failed to correct errors and mistakes in earlier books, even when republishing the same content in later configurations, despite having been pointed out the errors. This has persisted at least up to and including the 2013 Tolkien: A Dictionary.

Some effort appears to have been made to correct errors in the 2017 The Battles of Tolkien – possibly (probably?) also applying to later works. According to Sean Gunner (the 2017 reviewer of The Battles of Tolkien and current chair of the Tolkien Society) this does not mean that the book has any actual scholarly merits (my paraphrase).

As I have numerous good friends in the Tolkien Society who have confirmed the impression of Day's behaviour with respect to the 2004 Oxonmoot (including describing in negative terms his behaviour at the Oxonmoot), it will probably be no surprise that I am convinced that Day is lying in this interview. I am afraid that I, personally, cannot in good conscience write this off as “honest mistakes” or similar. But I would, of course, encourage anyone to apply their own critical facilities and reach their own conclusions.

Tuor son of Huor wrote:

By all accounts the Day books are well-designed and beautifully illustrated and if someone gave one to me as a gift I wouldn't dare complain to them that they had bought me something I didn't really appreciate.

I have been given these as gifts in the past, my tactic is to thank whoever gave me the gift, and then add it to my pile of books to be donated to charity (thrift) stores. I do like the illustrations in some of the books, A Tolkien Bestiary's saving grace is the wonderful artwork.