Understanding Middle-Earth: Essays on Tolkien's Middle-Earth (Paperback)

I have read this book and I enjoyed it. Michael Martinez knows the material inside out and I have no doubt he does a better job of checking his facts than people who are so hateful they have to accuse him of being a liar.

You should judge for yourself whether the book is worth the price you pay. Middle-earth is a wonderful fantasy and it comes to life under the hand of Michael Martinez. He is extremely faithful to professor Tolkien's word.

Ultimately, it is not my work that Conrad is hoping to discredit -- but Christopher Tolkien's work. This is all about Balrogs and wings.

Conrad Dunkerson's argument is based on his refusal to accept Christopher Tolkien's explanation of the manuscript histories. While it may bore some people to read about all these texts, it is important that anyone reading these reviews understand that the research of the reviewers needs to be questioned at least as much as the research of the author.

The "Quenta Silmarillion" text in the published SILMARILLION is based mostly on a mid-1930s manuscript referred to throughout THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH as QS. Christopher stipulated in THE LOST ROAD AND OTHER WRITINGS (Vol. V of THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH, pp.199-201) that QS actually consists of two texts: one typed, one hand-written. JRRT made corrections to the typed QS text in two phases: first in late 1937, and then about 14 years later in 1951. QS ends just before the tale of Beren and Luthien.

There are also supplemental texts, which Christopher refers to as QS(A)-QS(E), which were composed in the 1930s. QS(E) was the last pre-LoTR addendum that JRRT made to QS. (LOST ROAD, pp. 292-5,323). Christopher says his father abandoned work on the QS manuscripts when he began working on THE LORD OF THE RINGS.

On page 173 of THE WAR OF THE JEWELS Christopher says he based the second half of the published "Quenta Silmarillion" on three texts: QS, LQ 1, and LQ 2. In the Foreword to MORGOTH'S RING (Vol. X of THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH), Christopher says "it seems not to have been until the end of the 1950s that [JRRT] turned again seriously to the SILMARILLION narrative..." (p. viii). The Foreword continues to say that "much had changed since...the publication of THE LORD OF THE RINGS" and "before [JRRT] could prepare a new and final SILMARILLION he must satisfy the requirements of a coherent theological and metaphysical system, rendered now more complex in its presentation by the supposition of obscure and conflicting elements in its roots and its tradition." (Ibid.)

On 141, Christopher explains that, in the first phase of the 1950s work on THE SILMARILLION, JRRT merely wrote some corrections on the 1930s texts and then had them typed. This period (1951-2) produced the LQ 1 text. Christopher uses a letter his father wrote in 1957 to argue that LQ 2 was probably begun in 1958. He suggests that "Annals of Aman" may also date to 1958. The second phase of work on THE SILMARILLION commenced after these texts were finished (MR, p. 142-3). The Grey Annals text GA 2 is part of phase two. In the Foreword to THE WAR OF THE JEWELS (Vol. XI of THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH), Christopher writes "there is some evidence that the GREY ANNALS followed the ANNALS OF AMAN (in its primary form), but the two works were, I feel certain, closely associated in time of composition. For the structure of the history of Beleriand the GREY ANNALS constitutes the primary text, and although much of the latter part of the work was used in the published SILMARILLION with little change I give it in full. This is really essential on practical grounds, but is also in keeping with my intention in this 'History', in which I have traced the development of the Matter of the Elder Days from its beginning to its end within the compass of my father's actual writings: from this point of view the published work is not its end, and [he excluded his father's later writing]".

Hence, the Grey Annals proved to be JRRT's last word on the history of Beleriand. There are no later texts. But the specific passage in question, published in THE SILMARILLION, was not written by J.R.R. Tolkien at all. On page 238 of THE WAR OF THE JEWELS, Christopher wrote: "We now come to Chapter 11 in QS, given in V.279-89. The text was not much emended on the manuscript, and I give such changes as were made in the form of notes referenced to the numbered paragraphs in Vol. V."

He notes a change of name for Glaurung from Glomund, a name also noted as changed in the "Annals" text on page 180. If the reader looks no further than this, it would seem that the QS text from the 1930s served as the basis for the published SILMARILLION. But this text was not used by Christopher Tolkien. The published SILMARILLION text is most likely Christopher's own composition. He offers no explanation of where it came from. It differs substantially from the QS text, which has several variant names and is longer than the published text. The published paragraph also differs from the much later Grey Annals text.

Therefore, since there is no authority for the paragraph Christopher chose to publish in THE SILMARILLION, and since the QS manuscript was not substantively revised for the chapter concerning the ruin of Beleriand, there is no basis for assuming that the 1930s text represents the latest thoughts JRRT had on the much-disputed Balrogs passage. And I stand by what I have written in both VISUALIZING MIDDLE-EARTH and UNDERSTANDING MIDDLE-EARTH.

It should be noted that if there is ANYONE who is commonly identified as a 'Martinez hater' it would be me. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone with whom he has a longer or more intense history of disagreement. Take that into account as you consider my review.

'Understanding Middle Earth' greatly expands upon the strengths of Michael's previous book and goes a long way towards minimizing its weaknesses. It is well written and engaging, with a tone and pace that draw the reader in. There are numerous essays exploring possibilities and theories about the nature of Tolkien's world and what might be found lurking in those corners that Tolkien never fully detailed. This is Michael's gift, and I have never encountered anyone who does it better. The stuff that glowing reviews are made of.

However, that is not the full story. While it is less pronounced than usual, this book still suffers from the flaw which leads many to post warnings about Mr. Martinez's work. When Michael leaves the realm of the speculative and delves into the more esoteric details of what Tolkien actually wrote he will often take unwarranted liberties with the facts.

For instance, on page 485 he states that Tolkien removed reference to 'Balrogs in the train of Glaurung' from the description of a battle as part of his support for another claim. He made a similar statement on pages 214-15 of 'Visualizing'. Unfortunately, this claim is incorrect.

In 'Visualizing', Michael compares a description of the battle from 'The Grey Annals' to the 1930s text of Quenta Silmarillion and concludes that Tolkien removed 'Balrogs in the train'. The problem is that there were two PARALLEL texts about this time period... a set of 'Annals' ('Annals of Beleriand' revised to 'Later Annals' revised to 'Grey Annals') which NEVER had 'Balrogs in the train' in any version, and a set of 'narratives' ('Quenta Silmarillion' revised to 'Later Quenta Silmarillion' revised to 'The Silmarillion') which ALWAYS had 'Balrogs in the train'. Michael compared the final 'Grey Annals' to the early 'Quenta Silmarillion' and concluded that the reference had been removed (and therefor the idea rejected)... but the reality was that it never appeared in the 'Annals' at all, and continued to appear in all versions of the 'narratives'. An analogous situation would be comparing a draft of 'Lord of the Rings' to the completed timeline from the appendices and concluding that Tolkien meant to remove the breaking of Gandalf's staff on the bridge because it didn't appear in the final timeline (ignoring that it DID appear in the final narrative). Tolkien never removed or rejected 'Balrogs in the train'... Michael was just mistakenly comparing texts from two different evolutionary branches of the story. Christopher did NOT draw that phrase from a 1930s text, but rather from the final narrative version of 1958 - from which it was never removed.

Obviously this is a very small thing. The kind of minor mistake about an incredibly esoteric detail that ANYONE could make. The problem is that this error was pointed out to Michael after it appeared in 'Visualizing', but here it is again in the new book. And that is the reason that so many people take issue with Mr. Martinez's scholarship. He regularly presents information he knows to be inaccurate or incomplete rather than admit a mistake.

For those of you who admire Michael Martinez or enjoy his writings... before you click that 'Not Helpful' button out of simple loyalty, check the texts. You'll find that what I have said here is true. This isn't blind 'Martinez bashing' without substantiation. Anyone can look up the references and see that Michael was wrong about this point. But it isn't just the mistake that is the problem... everyone makes mistakes. However, most of us minimize them by learning over time and correcting things that we got wrong in the past. Michael most often does not.

Does this mean that you should not buy this book (or 'Visualizing')? Not at all. If you are interested in speculative exploration and expansion of Middle-Earth you are unlikely to find a better resource. Likewise, there is a wealth of information hidden just beneath the surface of 'Lord of the Rings' that is here layed out for the enjoyment of all. Only be aware that as the details of Tolkien's world grow more esoteric they are also likely to be less accurate. Michael Martinez has all the skills a literary researcher should, except the ability to acknowledge and correct his mistakes.

On Edit: A mere twenty-four hours after this review was submitted it had already received a rebuttal containing false information about myself and the texts and received numerous 'not helpful' votes. This isn't the forum for a protacted debate so I encourage everyone to check the facts for themselves. They prove my point about Mr. Martinez's willingness to present information he knows to be false.