What Books Have Tolkien's "Blessing"

[Holbytla]

[Note: I split this off from the sticky thread on books by and and about Tolkien so that that could remain primarily an informational thread, and further discussion on this subject could proceed here - VtF]

The Hobbit
Farmer Giles of Ham
*The Lord of the Rings
*The Adventures of Tom Bombadil
Tree and Leaf (On Fairy-Stories plus Leaf by Niggle)
Smith of Wootton Major
*The Road Goes Ever On

As far as I know, the only books published while Tolkien was alive and the only books that have his blessings. The rest should be taken with a grain of salt imo. Remember you are dealing with a master revisionist. The rest were pre-works or musings.
Not counting of course critiques and scholarly works.

I love Unfinished Tales as much as any Tolkien work, but it was never meant for publication. And certainly the Sil was never in a finished form, and I would hate to be the one who broke the news to him of his letters being published. Certainly they weren't the only letters he had written and who knows how many non-published letters had contrary views.

I know there are a lot of "Tolkien" books out there and they provide many hours of good reading. For me though there are the Hobbit, the LOTR and the Tolken Reader as far as ME goes. The rest should have a large asterisk next to them. Again not counting critiques or scholarly discussion.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

As far as I know, the only books published while Tolkien was alive and the only books that have his blessings.

Well, yes and no. Tolkien's will (as I understand it) states:

'5. I GIVE my library and all my manuscripts typescripts notes and all other articles connected with my work as an author (hereinafter referred to as 'my literary assets') to my Trustees upon the following trusts that is to say:

(a) Upon trust to allow my son Christopher full access to the same in order that he may act as my Literary Executor with full power to publish edit alter rewrite or complete any work of mine which may be unpublished at the time of my death or to destroy the whole or any part or parts of any such unpublished works as he in his absolute discretion may think fit and subject thereto'.

Sounds to me like he de facto gave his "blessing" to any posthumous publication of his work that was released by Christopher Tolkien.

Needless to say, that doesn't mean that those works should be free from being criticized (as that book with the pretty cover that Prim mentioned will show).

[Holbytla]

Sounds to me like he de facto gave his "blessing" to any posthumous publication of his work that was released by Christopher Tolkien.

Sounds to me like a lawyer wrote that.

Yes I know he gave his works to Christopher to do what he would with them, knowing that Christopher was his best successor.
Part of me wishes Christopher chose to destroy rather than publish. Part of me wishes the opposite.

Probably Tolkien could have lived to be 200 and never really finished revising. About the only thing that was going to get the Sil published as much as Tolkien could do was for Allen & Unwin to accept the Sil at an earlier date and for Tolkien to retire from teaching to work on it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I fully agree with this statement of Christopher's:

That The Silmarillion should remain unknown was for me out of the question, despite its disordered state, and despite my father's known if very largely unfulfilled intention for its transformation.

I obviously have some quibbles with the work that Christopher did in presenting it (see pretty-covered book), but overall I definitely think that he did a tremendous service to both his father's legacy and to his fans by working so hard to produce a coherent book.

As for the rest (UT, HoMe, CoH), there is certainly an argument that can be made that they never should have been published. But my opinion is that the nature of Tolkien's creation was such that in order to understand his mythology, one needs to study the whole history of its creation. I am grateful for Christopher tireless work in making so much available, and in providing so much valuable commentary about it.

[Holbytla]

But my opinion is that the nature of Tolkien's creation was such that in order to understand his mythology, one needs to study the whole history of its creation.

I can understand that, but which Nerwen story am I to take as the one story? The problem in some cases is that there is no definitive answer to some questions and at that point I take only what was published by Tolkien as gospel. The rest is subject to speculation and revision.

I own a 1st edition harcover copy of the Sil, purchased within a day of release, so keep in mind I am part of the choir so to speak. I certainly appreciate as well as anyone peeking into the deeper history of ME, but I can't do anything but take much of it with a grain of salt, knowing the author.

Honestly the whole story is one rather large unfinished tale. Not that I can place any blame. What was accomplished is a huge undertaking to be marvelled at.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But why does there need to be one answer? In any other mythological tradition, there are competing versions of different tales. The only difference is, they are written by different people.

[Holbytla]

Well certain people tend to cite certain "facts" in arguments, when of course there are few true facts.

Please oh dear Voronwë, recite for us the history of Galadriel and Celeborn. I mean how did they end up in Lórien and all and what is their past history? Just the facts please.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well certain people tend to cite certain "facts" in arguments, when of course there are few true facts.

That is their certain problem.

[Primula Baggins]

It's kind of freeing, isn't it, that these books aren't "scripture"? I like the humanity of that, of following Tolkien's ideas through iteration after iteration. As a writer I do know the feeling of, "But wait—that makes so much more sense!" The idea that pulls everything together, that makes two plot threads into one, that brings out the drama and the essential meaning of the story.

This moment is wonderful for a writer—less so, of course, if the first version has already been published. But it's almost always the right path to follow if there's still time.

Okay, I have some reservations about Tolkien's later ideas about his cosmology/theology, about bringing it into consonance with European history/geology and with Christianity; but I've been told some of my notions on those points are mistaken, so there.

[Alatar]

I take only what was published by Tolkien as gospel. The rest is subject to speculation and revision.

Well, even what was published was heavily revised, so which is gospel? The Gollum who happily handed over his ring to Bilbo, or the one who screamed "We hates it forever"?

That said, I do agree with you a lot Holby. I'm reading History of the Hobbit at the moment (whenever I have time, so very slowly) and I found myself smiling a few times. There was one particular point where Tolkien was writing about the Dwarves stumbling into the Elven feasts in Mirkwood three times, but for some reason the Elvenking said "Twice now have you disturbed my people at their feasting". He corrected it afterwards, but if he hadn't, I'm pretty sure there'd be an Essay or Study, or at the very least a thread entitled "The Third Feast - Who was it?". Probably with discussions of Oromë, Tulkas, or possibly Bombadil, cross referenced to other feasts and wooded areas and a final conclusion that Tolkien was cleverly exploiting the traditional Mythos, while tying it back to the original roots of the Silmarillion, informed by his deeply held Catholic beliefs. And I'm sure the arguments would have been compelling!

[axordil]

Honestly the whole story is one rather large unfinished tale.

As JRRT noted, obliquely, in Leaf by Niggle.

The best mythologies, that is, the "real" ones, have no edge. An edge means they're done growing and shifting and have become merely fictions.

[Old_Tom_Bombadil]

This was an excellent, albeit brief, discussion. I'm sorry to have missed participating in it at the time that it was active.

I, like Voronwë, am very grateful that Christopher Tolkien has seen fit to publish many of his father's writings posthumously. And not having everything tied up with a neat little bow has certainly generated a very great number of interesting discussions.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I agree, Tom. It truly is remarkable how successfully Tolkien has managed to simulate a real mythology, complete with competing versions of tales. We never would have had the opportunity to appreciate that without Christopher's massive efforts. My friend Jason Fisher made a very apt comparison in a chapter he wrote for the book The Silmarillion -Thirty Years on called "From Mythopoeia to Mythography: Tolkien, Lönnrot, and Jerome." In this chapter, he compares the work that Christopher did in compiling his father's work to the work done by Elias Lönnrot in compiling the Kalevala, the Finnish national epic compiled from national folklore (portions of which provided the inspiration for the story of Túrin). The difference, of course, is that the Kalevala consists of tales written by a host of different authors, whereas Tolkien's legendarium was all composed by him, but it really does give the sense of compilation of different sources.

[solicitr]

Very true. Look just at the Siegfried/Sigurd tale- the Eddas, Volsungasaga and Nibelungenlied are all quite different, in detail and in major points. Homer, Hesiod and Ovid are often in blatant contradiction. The haze and uncertainty and 'which version is better or 'more true'' are part of the magic of myth.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Exactly. Well said.

Verlyn Flieger once answered the question "whose myth is it?" by saying it is the myth of whoever happens to be speaking at that moment. That is, perhaps, one of Tolkien's greatest achievements.

[N.E. Brigand]

I take only what was published by Tolkien as gospel. The rest is subject to speculation and revision.

Well, even what was published was heavily revised, so which is gospel? The Gollum who happily handed over his ring to Bilbo, or the one who screamed "We hates it forever"?

Quite so! A friend of mine was raised on the first edition Hobbit (in a copy gifted to his grandfather by Tolkien, even) and was stunned later in life to learn that Tolkien had changed the story he knew and loved; and he still prefers the 1937 "Riddles in the Dark".

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Wow, that is truly a family heirloom!

I do think that the original Riddles in the Dark fits the story of The Hobbit better, but when considered in conjunction with LOTR and the whole legendarium, there is no comparison.

[solicitr]

I must say, I agree with Tolkien's anonymous friend who read the "darkened" 1960 revision, so far as it went, and opined "It's not The Hobbit!" TH has its own charm, which I hope GdT can preserve.

[Alatar]

Funnily enough I'm really looking forward to that section of "History of the Hobbit". I'm just starting the section on Phase Three.

[Holbytla]

I'm the lone purist in a world of Tolkien revisionists, including Tolkien himself.

facetious