The Complete Tolkien Companion - anyone have it?
 

Available in England is a thrice revised version of JEA Tylers Tolkien Companion now called the Complete Tolkien Comapanion.

Anyone have it, and if so what do you think? How well does it cover the HoM-E material?

As of this time it is the only guide to cover the latter volumes [ The Illustrated Encyclopedia of David Day goes up to vol 4 I believe] wherein are contained many of the most perplexing tangles of story version and competing/unresolved philosophies. So I am greatly curious to hear reviews from fellow BD'ers.

lindil, good sir, I don't have it, but perhaps could you find a link of somewhere to buy it online? I'm much interested.

It's good for providing basic material (i.e. birthplaces, histories, etc.), but beyond that it doesn't seem to give any really detailed information. One thing it's good at is giving a basic list of words in Quenya: a basic vocabulary. But otherwise, as I said, it isn't really that great.

Iarwain

Beren I have verified its existence primarily throgh Amazon.UK

thanks Iarwain.

I had a feeling it was as you say.

Hopefully thugh it will still make it's way across the atlantic.

Lindil, I have Tyler's Complete Tolkien Companion. I would describe it as a very good reference book, far superior to the Illustrated Tolkien Encyclopedia by David Day, which I also have. But, as Iarwain said, while it is good for looking up facts - who someone is, what they did etc (and, as such is very useful for the Quiz Room [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ), it does not really go any deeper than that. It does deal with one or two theories concerning the world of Middle-earth, the Tom Bombadil debate for example, but it really only scratches the very outer layer of the surface in this regard.

One drawback that it does have as a reference book is that there is practically no cross-referencing back to the Books themselves.

Hope that this helps. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Thanks Saucepan.

Yes,unfortunately [although having tried my hand at something far more comprehensive I can sympathize] Tyler missed agolden, and prob his last opportunity to put out a masterpeice, but if it corrects alot of the semi-accurate and inaccurate material in the first and 2nd versions, that is still something.

I enjoyed his tone on the first 2 quiet a bit.

I bought the first one when tolkien was so big in the 70's [Silm just out] that it was in a grocery store [ a Giant to be precise]!

Does it still have that great cover of an emaciated gandalf and seriously dour dwarves?

Mine does. That image creeps me out to this day.

Anyway, about it making it's way to the states, I believe it has because I have had a copy for some 4-5 years, and I live in the true heart of america (chicago). I suppose I've never checked to see if it was an american publication (I bought it second hand), but anyway, there must be a way to procure a copy, even in California.

Iarwain

I have both the Complete Tolkien Companion and David Day's encyclopedia. I find that both are superb, especially the CTC, from where I have learnt most of my information and facts on Middle Earth.

Iarwain, is your version the Complete, the New TC, or just plain Tolkien Companion?

All three are very different.
The latter has only Pre-Silmarillion info, the middle includes the Silm [and was pub. circa 1980] and the newest, 'The Complete Tolkien Companion' is very recent and draws on all UT and HoM-E. 2002 I think, and currently england only

*feels a compulsive need to point* Saucepan has the Complete Tolkien Companion! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] *cough* And he mentions it a lot, so it must be good... [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

Actually, I would be interested to know if we have nailed down the availability of said book, because I have a copy of the Original Tolkien Companion (scary horrifying Gandalf and all), and would be muy interested in upgrading.

Thanks.

Sophia

Well, I finally remembered to get my copy off the shelf, and look at it. I have the original "Tolkien Companion", published 1976 in NYC by St. Martin Press. That's all.

I forgot to say I love that cover. Gandalf's arms are a little to skinny, but the dwarves and forest are in my mind perfect. As is the expression on Gandalf's face.

J E A Tyler's, The Complete Tolkien Companion, Is available in the UK from WH.Smiths, or thats were I bought mine. I find it is good for reference.

I have the same two books that Saucepan man said he did in his first post. Tyler's companion in my opinion is great...and it's accruate because it dosen't go into opinion. The book is souly about facts, and these are set out well and comprehensivly (Spelling). I think it's a great book.

As was posted before, the Illustrated version is pretty basic, but does have some nice drawings, it's purely a visual aid i think.

I have Foster's Complete Guide to Middle-Earth, which I find to be on the whole, quite good. Though I'm beginning to have a list of things it leaves out.

I also have The Tolkien Bestiary, which is apparently David Day's attempt to make more money off of the Illustarted Guide, as it's the same thing with a new name.

i have that exact book, and i think it is very good, but it doesnt have absolutely everything in it.

I have Foster's Complete Guide to Middle-Earth too, and it is pretty good. Also, I own David Day's A Tolkien Bestiary and after looking at his Illustrated Guide in the bookstore, I too noticed that the two are very, VERY similar.

The Complete Tolkien Companion by J.E.A. Tyler, like The Atlas Of Middle-Earth by Karen Wynn Fonstad are excellent reference books on the fine world J.R.R. Tolkien created. According to the Forward, what is contained in The Complete Tolkien Companion is based on the released Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, Silmarillion, and Unfinished Tales. The different versions of previously published tales were not used, but maybe footnoted. A good book to have!

I don't think Foster's or Tyler's companions ever intended to fully cover HME. Hammond and Scull's The JRR Tolkien Companion and Guide -- which includes two volumes, Chronology and Reader's Guide, does cover HME, especially the Reader's Guide as far as collecting related material.


I actually have Foster's guide published before the 1977 Silmarillion, so that's based primarily on Tolkien-published material, and so to my mind ends up being like a good internal look at Middle-earth. Of course, one expects some things to be off, compared to what would later come to light, but I find it very interesting to read a companion that considers only (or at least mostly) what the Subcreator himself allowed his readership to read.

Anyway, again I doubt Foster or Tyler even claim to take up the difficult task of covering UT or HME, at least in full. Not that I know of anyway.

In his forward, Tyler does say that much of the material in UT did add to expanding the known tales, whereas, HoME contained primarily earlier, rejected or superseded versions and such of previously released materials.

I too have Robert Foster's Guide to Middle Earth, and it was quite invaluable to me when I got it in 1976 after I read Lord of the Rings a couple times. All we had in those days were the J.R.R. Tolkien-published books, and the gold-mine that is the Appendices. I agree it is a great glimpse back to what Tolkien himself had published.

Hmm, interesting Snowdog.

I assume Tyler's use of UT is then limited to additional material that does not conflict with other unpublished (additional) material, or conflict with Tolkien-published material. So I asume Tyler is picking and choosing texts he feels are 'safe enough' from UT, though that could still give him a substantial enough amount of additional material I guess.

Take the Oropher material for instance. Does Tyler avoid Oropher altogether? because if not he will end up playing editor between two arguably conflicting accounts in UT, and to conflate the two (as I've seen on the web) would also involve editorial decisions and present something that JRRT himself never wrote. And if Tyler presents both accounts, then his companion has basically become another animal, selectively dealing with external variations if he ignores others.

And since Tyler is already working with Christopher Tolkien's constructed Silmarillion, 'new material' like the death of Amros at Losgar, or the Dome of Varda and the Star Imagines, or Gil-galad's parentage (for examples) can't really be considered new for his purposes anyway.

It must be obvious enough to Tyler that the Later Quenta Silmarillion and other Silmarillion related texts have already been edited for him -- the death of Amros is not an early or superseded notion, for instance, but neither can it be easily used in his companion as new material or he will have to explain the variation in an external context.

I guess one would have to read through his book to see how he handles it. :)

Listed as 'Amrod &n Amras', said both to have been slain in an assault upon the Havens of Sirion

Of Oropher it says he was slain the Battle of Dagorlad and Thranduil his son became King of the Woodland Realm.

So it appears he doesn't avoid Oropher altogether, and accepts the information in the Silmarillion as published, not other versions of the tale presented in HoMe.

Yes I'm almost tempted to buy it now. Almost ;)

The Amrod and Amras entry is expected enough, and Tyler appears to be doing as I expected with Unfinished Tales too: editing problematic accounts and therefore somewhat limiting the amount of new material he can add to his companion. That's why I said above 'at least in full', as here we see him using Unfinished Tales but stripping the Oropher texts (which arguably conflict with each other in part) to present a more easily accepted description concerning this character.

I'm not yet sure I would necessarily include Oropher at all.

The one thing I forgot to point out was that in the 1st 2 editions, JEAT, goes along with JRRT's feigned 'M-E as history' .

I liked the effect, as if I was reading a tome from within M-E not the RW.

That was forsworn in the 3rd ed. Too bad.

I think I will try and find a 2nd ed. a do an all new revision.

When Aiwendil and I tried our hand at an encyclo, I neglected to use an older outdated reference work as a starting point. Big Mistake! This will help put some healthy boundaries on the thing.