David Day: Literary Burglar?
 

Good day!


I have heard that David Day’s books are not exactly true to Tolkien’s work and that he makes up most of what he writes as he goes along. Telchar has shared this with me and I have expressed my opinion (I do disagree), because I have one of Day’s Tolkien companions and I don’t see any flaws. But I wanted to know some of your opinions on David Day, just to see if his work isn’t entirely correct.

Is he really a literary burglar?

Or are his books useful guides to Tolkien’s world?

From what I know, students studying Tolkien at university and college use David Day’s books for their learning.

Best,

Tarien [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Well I have David Day's "Guide to MIddle Earth" or somehting like that, its an A4-sized book, with a purpley cover, and in it he has a big map of The world and Valinor, many things in which are Geographically inaccurate according to the Atlas of Middle Earth. I cant give any examples now, but I will go and have a look now. It seems to me that it is just how he imagines middle earth, not how it is. For one thing, I remember Beleriand is incorrectly placed.
Anyway, yes, I reckon he makes a lot of it up.

Bombariffic

Right I'm back.

The book is called "characters from Tolkien" and the cover is purple and white, and it has a sketch of what I presume to be Gandalf on the front.

Anyway, on the Map alone, he has made Numenor just blob-shaped (almost circular, if it werent for its wobbly perimeter) as opposed to star-shaped, with 5 prongy bits. He has also put the shire, gondor, rohan etc. (the area concerned in Lord of the rings - Is there a proper name for it? Cos I thought "Middle Earth" was the whole land mass) much further south than beleriand, when I thought they were supposed to be East of it. I may be wrong, but i dont think I am. Barad-Dur is somewhere out by the sea of Rhun, Lothlorien is between where it should be and where Fangorn should be, and Fangorn isnt even on the map. Mirkwood also comes down almost to where Fangorn should be.

Anyway, I remember a friend of mine pointing out a few more inaccuracies cos he is the atlas-bearer, but i cant see them at the moment.

Bombariffic

Well I don’t know much about David Day. It seems everyone has their own views about him. I am not on anyone’s side and I have yet to decide whether I like him or not (I cant come to a conclusion due to the fact that I don’t know much about him). From what I gather David Day has written about how he sees Middle-earth, which could be a bad or a good thing. Each and everyone of us have a different aspect of Middle-earth. To you a hobbit looks like so and so to me I see a hobbit as a completely different thing. But then again David Day has made some things up which is not a good thing. I think it all comes down to J.R.R Tolkien. How did he see Middle-earth? How did he describe it to us? At the end of the day it all comes up to the fact that Tolkien described a hobbit the way he saw it but no matter what, we will always see things differently. But like I said I cant answer your question for I do not know enough to form my own view!

~Niluial~

[ October 05, 2003: Message edited by: Niluial ]

Niluial, let me give you an exsample taken from the quizthread that started this discussion about David Day: The last question conserning the mearas and snowmane... David Day says about Snowmane that he is a meara. Tolkien never says that snowmane is a meara. People may assume that Snowmane is a meara, being the kings horse.
But the mearas that we know of: Felarof and Shadowfax were ridden without saddle, bridle or stirrup.

From LOTR
This however clearly shows that Snowmane was ridden with saddle and stirrup, an arguement for those that say that he was not one of the mearas.

I do not have the answer, because Tolkien doesnt give a desisive answer. David Day however has no problem writing books where he lets his own conclusions stand as fact.

If we read on about the mearas in the Tolkien Companion by mr. Day we can learn about the horse of Eorl that: Eorl renamed him Felaróf, Father of Horses, for from him came forth the mearas.

So David Day says that Felaróf means Father of Horses, which is funny, because Tolkien never says so. He does however say this in the notes to Cirion and Eorl in Unfinished Tales note 28.

These are just minor errors by David Day - much worse cases are seen all over his 'works'. The main problem being that David Day NEVER says: this is how I see it, or I suppose... or I think... Everything is stated as facts and made into small dictionarys and encyclopedias about Tolkien, and by readers belived to be facts about ME.

Note also that the title of this thread Literary Burglar was actually something that Christopher in public has called David Day - that should be enough for most people.

[ October 05, 2003: Message edited by: Telchar ]

What I find distressing about Day is his 'self-plagarization'.

Any cursory look at one of his many 'guides' will quickly show that they are all canabalized from each other.

After a couple books thus becomes imo shameless profiteering.

Having started work [with a few other wise souls] on a Tolkien guide myself, I have a darn good idea of just how incredibly hard to do such a project aiming for any serious degree of completeness that is. Since the advent of Home, I would call it nigh on impossible for one individual.

David Day's works go a long way toward proving me correct.

On the positive side, he often has some incredible artwork [ by others] included. So that alone may be worth the price of admission for some.

On the other hand, when he is not misreprensenting conjecture for fact [something I have encounterd in an entry on vampires[?!?] his writing I find far more palatable than the dry as dust Foster.

Well, I haven't heard of David Day, so I can't judge on that. But I think Robert Foster is very reliable. I think I found just one mistake or something. Christopher said it was good. (This is the A-Z of Middle-Earth I am talking about). If something isn't specified in the books, Foster says so. He doesn't make up his own mind and then present it as fact as David Day appears to do.

Ok well I am taking my foot out of this conversation. Like I said I really know nothing about David Day. So I’ll leave this conversation to the professionals [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]!

~Niluial~

Yes, thank you for your opinions. I have come to the conclusion that Day is a master of Tolkien's work, but also assumes many things.

For instance, he states in my book, that the Kraken was the Watcher in the Water, when Tolkien never mentioned the Kraken.

So, yes,I do believe Day does plagerize and assume but I still use his books whcih are generally accurate.

Best,

Tarien

These two sentences, separated by the ellipsis, come from different posts, but they suggest a problem with the way literary research is taught, I think.

Day is not a very reliable or respected source. He does not offer analysis or original thought about Tolkien's writing. He is not a serious literary scholar and I cannot imagine a professor in university who would accept Day as a legitimate secondary source. He really provides a crib, like Cole's Notes, for people who don't have the time to read and think about Tolkien thoroughly.

More useful (meaning they open up understanding of what Tolkien does rather than substitute for reading Tolkien) critics for study of Tolkien include Fleiger, Joseph Campbell, Shippey.

Respectfully submitted,
Bêthberry

I thought I was really smart, by buying David Day's 'A Guide To Tolkien'. Anyway, I soon found out that I wasn't that smart.. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] He seems pretty darn good, you know. When you read in the back of this book, he actually gives up sources. Wow, I remember I thought. Then, one evening, after spending a night at BD chat, discussing Tom Bombadil and who he really was, I discovered something in my David Day book: 'A *guide* to Tolkien'. Here David claims that Tom Bombadil is a Maia Master of The Forest.

A bit down on the page:
Has Tolkien ever said that Tom Bombadil was a Maia Spirit? No? I haven't read that either! Besides, the sources David mentions in the back of the book, where he claims to have found that Tom is probably a Maia Spirit: Tom isn't even mentioned there!

David Day makes up stuff. His so called *works* do not completely match with Tolkien's writings. I suggest that everyone should by Guides from other authors, because this one is obviously on the wrong track.. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Thanks,
*nova* [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Yes, I had forgotten about that innacuracy as well...there are countless other ones, but I cant be bothered to read the whole book to find them.

Bombariffic

No, I wouldn't have done that either; reading the whole book I mean. Because most of it is probably just stuff that dude made up.. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

*nova* [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Just a particular one that I remembered about Old Man Willow, and looked up in Mr Day's book "Characters form Tolkien":

-"All the land of the Old Forest was held in sway by his will" - aren't we forgetting Mr Bombadil?

I've got "A Guide to Tolkien" by David Day as my parents bought it for me. I do not think it's really bad and at parts it's really informative where undisputed things are mentioned but the more mysterious things are where the reader has to be sceptical as he does indeed mention his suspicions as facts.

And how does one know where Day is reliable and where he is not, unless one knows Tolkien well first?

And if one knows Tolkien, why then bother with Day?

The fact that David Day assumes that Tom Bombadil is a Maia Spirit shows his lack of information. Can you recall Tolkien mentioning that Tom was indeed that? Can you recall Tolkien mentioning what Tom Bombadil really was?

Knows Tolkien, hmm... How good can you know a man like that with such brilliant and unforseen imagination? I might use a 'Day' one day.. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

*nova* [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

(Just a thought of course..)
EDIT: Wow, I have 300 posts!! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ October 05, 2003: Message edited by: Novnarwen ]

I agree that Day is not a reliable source whatsoever. Take a look at this quote from A Guide to Tolkien concerning Aragorn. Hello!! Thengel and Ecthelion were completely different people, and NOT aliases of Aragorn's at all. Plus, Day does not include any weapons in his encyclopedia. Glamdring, Anduril, and Aiglos are missing, just to name a few. I agree. I have looked at other books of his, besides the one I own, and they all appear to be the same, but with different covers and titles.

I'm beginning to wonder just haw well Day, or Yad Divad [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] , as my brother and I call him, has even read Tolkien's works.

I had the misfortune to read all of A Guide to Tolkien when I first discovered Middle Earth, having been given the book, and believe me, the book was absolutely full of errors and opinions represented as fact.

That's interesting...I've never heard that about David Day before.

As I am in no way a Tolkien expert, am no where near that, I must pose a question.

How much does anyone know of Tolkien's world that is not covered in his works? Isn't there a certain amount that we have to make up?

Still, if David Day really did just 'make stuff up,' he should have made a note to that, but...perhaps it's just that any good Tolkien fan should know. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Isn't it all made up?

I have a book by David Day titled A Hobbit Companion in which he discusses the etymological origins of character names in the LotR. It's very interesting, and I quoted it in a paper I wrote recently in undergrad (it was a very tangential point--the paper was not about Tolkien).

However, since my first reading of A Hobbit Companion, I have tried to confirm some of his claims (using the OED, mostly) and have been unable to. So I'm wondering about the accuracy. Has anyone else read this book and done any research on his claims?

i have two books by Day, a small A-Z of tolkien and the encyclopedia of tolkien (i think its a later publication of the same book). personally, i find his info a wee bit misleading an at places inaccurate, and the main reason to buy the encyclopedia is for tolkien-art from less well known artists. the "informative diagrams" are terrible tho, and seem to confuse you more than inform.

I have David Day's Tolkien Illustrated Encyclopedia, but since getting Tyler's Complete Tolkien Companion I rarely use it.

That is not to say that I had noticed any inaccuracies in Day's work (although, from what people have said, they clearly are there). It's just that Tyler's book offers a far more exhaustive and authoritative guide. My only problem with Tyler is that he does not provide references to the source material, whereas Day does.

It seems to me, though, that Day does not do any real harm. If people are interested enough in Tolkien's works, than they will read the original material (including the guides published by his son) and/or the many wise comments posted on sites such as this, and so will be aware of the inaccuracies. If they are not, then they will be none the wiser.

After all, who would really care that Tom Bombadil might not be a Maia except a real Tolkien afficionado? And a real Tolkien afficionado will be well aware of the shortcomings in that theory and probably has a theory of their own ... [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[ October 05, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

I purchased Day's "Characters From Tolkien" about 6 months ago, it was in the "bargain" section of my book store-'nuff said. (If you're wondering why I bought it, well I'm one of those crazy people who will buy practically anything Tolkien-related, good or bad. Scary, isn't it?) [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

I have a thread in the Movies which deals with a similar topic. A lady wrote a play that was performed more than once and for money and everything. It's called Bilbo's lost journal and it's the most outrageous thing I've ever seen.

I don't think people should be aloud to make money off the idea's of others. Especially famous ones like LOTR.
They should just stick to fanfictions.

IE Birnan Wood etc.

I picked up his hardcover Bestiary many years ago. It did have way too many errors but there was and is one nice thing about the book. The illustrations, both color and black and white sketches, are first rate and are done by a group of eleven different artists.

I have noticed the same thing about several others of Day's laters books. I make it a point only to pick them up on remainder tables for $4 or less, since the content is iffy at best amd a lot of the entries are just repackaged information with a different cover. But, strangely enough, it is the illustrations that sometimes make the books worth purchasing, at least for a few dollars each.

The Hobbit Companion, for example, which someone else mentioned, contains many supposed derivations of hobbit words and names. From what I can see, few of them have the slightest grounding in reality other than the author's imagination. However, Lidia Postma's depictions of hobbits are a lot of fun, and were reissued in a recent calendar.

Tolkien's Ring is another strange book by Day -- tracing the origin of magic rings in a whole host of world mythologies -- many of which have nothing whatsoever to do with Tolkien! However, the illustrations are by Alan Lee and those are all first rate.

Tolkien's Illustrated Encyclopedia also has some stunning illustrations from 19 different artists.

What I'd like to know is how he manages to get such a plethora of strong illustrators for his works! I haven't seen this with any other author.

If you have money for one good Tolkien guide, I would definitely pass up Day. But if it's sitting on the remainder table for $4 and you're into visual depictions of Middle-earth, the illustrations may be worth the purchase.

sharon

[ October 06, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

I think that all David Day's Encyclopedias are good for are the illustrations.

His books are filled with his assumptions, and most of his definitions are far below the level of most of the threads in this forum. I think that if we were to try, we could probably compile a much better encyclopedia and bestiary, based on some of the advanced discussions that I've read.

Do you guys have any idea how huge affection you have on me? I was today on a book store and I saw one piece of work from David Day. The little I knew about him was he had written some books concerning M-E. But now I would have loved to rip the book out from the shelf and shout that he is a filthy little thief (or something like that) and one mustn't ever buy his books!!
For some reason I didn't do that.

Yes, I see you have evidence that Day's work is not accurate. (Ecthelion/Aragorn? That really was w-a-y off! Day was wrong there! [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] )

But I'm sure there are some correct points in his books.
Or not.

there are correct points, but he makes huge mistakes too: for example, in the illustrated ecyclopedia, he states that glorfindel was named after the glorfindel of the first age. (and we all know better, don't we) furthermore, he states that smaug was thge last dragon in te thirth and i am only remembering being said that smaug was the most powerful dragon in his days.

on other points David day gives but little information. the poece about Balrogs is but 6 lines long. there sure can be written much more about Balrogs.