a classification of Tolkien scholars

[calimac]

Oh, just a side thought from the project I'm currently working on.

1. Tolkien wrote one book: The Lord of the Rings.

2. Tolkien wrote two books: The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

3. Tolkien wrote three books: The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion. In that order.

4. Tolkien wrote four books: The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, and whichever other one I happen to have read.

5. Tolkien wrote ...

well, you get the idea. Eventually one arrives at the sufficiently well-read to be qualified to write about it.

Comments

[papersky.livejournal.com]

Two books, some translations and a large pile of bits and pieces?

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

That would be a step ahead of some of these people.

[scribblerworks.livejournal.com]

Ouch, ouch, ouch.

But yes, there does seem to be this progression.

It's one of the reasons I truly applaude the whole of the History of Middle-earth. Those volumes document the progress of creation in a way it has not been done before (or at least, not to that degree), and likely will not be done again. And it doesn't even touch all his scholarship and "other stories" that went on in tandem with the Middle-earth work. The existence of the History would lead would-be scholars to become a bit more aware of the scope of his production ... or at least it should.

But of course, there will always be those who never look beyond their noses.

[kip-w.livejournal.com]

Everybody knows the Lord of the Rings is six books!

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

The really low-rankers on this list think it's a trilogy.