Mith. I understand what you mean. I also own (& have read!) HoM-e (in paperback & the three volume hardback set in the slipcase. I'm not saying it shouldn't have been produced - we all owe CT a debt of thanks.
I also own a good 50-60 volumes of secondary literature on Tolkien, so I'm not opposed to such things. My point was that the important things on Tolkien seem to have been said & what we're getting now is really not all that important - essays in the last two volumes of Tolkien Studies have speculated on the possible influence on Tolkien of King Solomon's Mines & The Old Curiosity Shop. We've had a slew of books showing how LotR is a 'fundamentally Christian work', or 'revealing' the Norse & Celtic influences on Tolkien's writings. The point is -
we know all that - whether we agree with it or not is another matter.
Quote:
|
now I can't help thinking that to treat it as a mythology primarily is to demean Tolkien's achievement in creating what seems plausible as a mythology, what seems plausible as a world.
|
I don't see that it is - that was Tolkien's desire - to create a mythology he could dedicate to his country. Neither am I arguing for an 'authorised' sequel(s). I'm making the point that all we are getting now is a scholarly dissection (with an increasing obsession with the obscure & unnecessary) & that that is not what attracted us to Tolkien's creation in the first place, or what draws us back to it.