Another "new" Tolkien book

[Voronwë the Faithful]

My review is now up at The Journal of Tolkien Research, complete with a special guest appearance by our very own Eldy!

The Fall of Númenor (2022) by J.R.R. Tolkien, edited by Brian Sibley

[Jude]

Thanks for that - that's the information on the book I was looking for!

[Eldy]

It's good to read your thoughts in full, Voronwë! I'm kinda glad I only flipped through the book; the chapter for II.3175 sounds like it would have had me breaking out in hives. Which is a shame, because the alternate take on Míriel, Pharazôn, and Elentir from "The History of the Akallabêth" is genuinely interesting stuff, just ... not presented like this.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

To be fair, that probably was the worst example of contradictory material placed together with no real explanation. And all he needed to do was add something like "one tale holds that ___________" and then "but in the Akallabêth it is said that _____________." Oh well. I still think that the book has value, and as you said earlier in the thread, if it gets some more casual fans interested in the Second Age tales, all the better.

[Eldy]

Yeah, there are a number of pretty minor changes to Sibley's method of presenting the texts that I think would've left me feeling much more positive about the book. Like you say, oh well. And if this does in fact give poor Elentir his moment in the sun with casual readers, that's at least one thing to be grateful for.

[Inanna]

My review is now up at The Journal of Tolkien Research, complete with a special guest appearance by our very own Eldy!

The Fall of Númenor (2022) by J.R.R. Tolkien, edited by Brian Sibley

Interesting. For me, the passages quoted from Letters etc. were insightful.

I did cringe at Sibley’s denigration as a scholar….

[Alatar]

What exactly makes one a scholar? Lets not get overly sniffy and gatekeeping. I hate snobbery,.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I did cringe at Sibley’s denigration as a scholar….

I certainly was not meaning to denigrate him. I'm sorry it made you cringe.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

What exactly makes one a scholar? Lets not get overly sniffy and gatekeeping. I hate snobbery,.

A scholar is someone who does scholarly work. I wouldn't call someone who does not do engineering work an engineer either. That's not snobbery. It's fact.

[Eldy]

The "About this Book" introduction to The Fall of Númenor, which can be read in the Google Books preview, contrasts Sibley's approach of "provid[ing] extracts ... with as few editorial interventions as possible" with Christopher's "peerless, insightful commentary and analysis" that accompanied "the definitive presentation" of his father's works. I don't think it's unreasonable or insulting to note that one of these approaches is a scholarly endeavor and one is not. After all, the main selling point of The Fall of Númenor, even more than the 2010s editions of the Great Tales, is that it's more accessible to casual readers than UT or especially HoMe, partly because it is less wonkish (i.e., scholarly) in tone. To that end, it makes sense that the chosen editor is someone whose background is principally in creating adaptations (and companions to adaptations) of Tolkien's works rather than academic studies. That doesn't mean one is inherently better or worse than the other, though arguably FoN would've been more interesting if Sibley had shown more of his creative chops and produced something closer to the 1977 Silmarillion, which is—by design—even less "scholarly." But that likely would have been impossible to produce quickly enough to serve as an unofficial ROP tie-in.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes. Exactly.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

A more positive (but less detailed) review in Amon Hen:

[narya]

A scholar is someone who does scholarly work. I wouldn't call someone who does not do engineering work an engineer either. That's not snobbery. It's fact.

I disagree. But I don't feel comfortable saying more.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Please do, narya. I promise I won't get offended.

[Inanna]

I’ve been waffling over posting here again. My issue was not with calling the work “non-scholarly”, my issue was with calling the author “not a scholar”. Works can be criticized without criticizing the person. And anyway, if the book is not meant to be scholarly (as Eldy pointed out), then pointing out whether the author is not a scholar feels…. well, as I said, I cringed.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That's fair, however there are a couple of points that I would like to make. First of all, while I agree that the book probably is not really directed as much at Tolkien scholars as it is towards more casual fans, it is not billed in that way, and Sibley is described as a "Tolkien expert" which certainly could suggest that he is an accomplished Tolkien scholar. Secondly, this review is not directed at the general public, it is a review for The Journal of Tolkien Research, a periodical specifically for Tolkien scholars. Thirdly, contrary to what you claim, I never said that Sibley was "not a scholar." What I said, exactly, is that "he has little history of Tolkien scholarship." Which is a simple fact, and certainly relevant in a journal dedicated to Tolkien scholarship and in comparing the book to previous similar books edited by Christopher, Carl Hostetter, John Rateliff, and others, which are much more scholarly works, and in my opinion, much more successful ones, as well. I understand that you, Al, narya, and probably others here disagree with me. That is fine. Different opinions respectively expressed is what this site is all about.

[narya]

I was concerned with your saying that someone who is not doing engineering is not an engineer. I disagree.

I have been an engineer all my life. Being an engineer is much more than just a job. I'm not doing engineering at the moment, but I will always be an engineer. It is my identity. It is how I view and interact with the world.

As for who is a scholar, that depends on your definition. Webster sets the bar pretty low, and I have passed all four definitions at one time or another.

1. a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher - a pupil
2.a. a person who has done advanced study in a special field
2.b. a learned person
3. a holder of a scholarship

Others define a scholar as someone working in academia, someone who is published, or someone who is recognized as contributing new knowledge to a field. I haven't worked in academia in decades, but I have contributed to two books, and I was a subject matter expert in a newly evolving field. But I never called myself a scholar. If someone else wants to identify themselves a scholar, by whatever definition, I'm not going to quibble.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

You earned the right to be called an engineer. Someone who has never put the study and work to become an engineer can call themselves an engineer, but it would not have the same validity that your claim has even if they were "working as an engineer" and you currently are not. My choice of words may been been inexact but I don't think that we are truly in disagreement.

[Inanna]

V, you exactly said “Sibley simply is not a scholar” in the last page. Although now that I reread it that phrase sounds like an excuse for why he has not provided detailed endnotes. Taken together with the beginning of the review when his lack of Tolkien authorship is elaborated, it felt denigrating.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I thought you were referring to what I wrote in the review.

I promise I won't share or comment on any future reviews or papers that I might have published here.