Would Tolkien have been Angry? - Scull & Hammond’s 2014 The Adventures of Tom Bombadil

[Priya]

Instead of including this subject in the ‘Bombadil’ thread - I thought that it’s worth crystallizing this succinctly in a new one. It might be a little controversial, but anyhow here goes:

In 2014 Christina Scull & Wayne Hammond had published, with permission of the Tolkien Estate, an updated release of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Adventures of Tom Bombadil & Other Verses from the Red Book (shortened henceforth to Adv. of TB - 2014). To be honest, back then I didn’t really know what to expect, but as I had already taken up study of the mysterious Bombadils with some avidity for several years prior, as an early purchaser I was quite interested in what two well-respected scholars in the community had to offer. Also in possessing the ‘original’ book release of 1962 - I was curious to see any differences and evaluate their significance.

Over the past decade, I’ve pondered quite a bit on both the content and Scull & Hammond’s actual emendations. By ‘emendations’ - I really am largely referring to the stuff they ‘added’ to the 1962 issue, rather than minor edit/correction type changes made to the original content.

Initially I was quite perturbed at what they had done. This was not just a case of some disappointment at their scholarship or discontent at the arrangement and selection of ‘new’ material. But instead, it was deeper rooted than that. A kind of seething disgust arose in me. And that which I’ve left to simmer for far too long, has unfortunately not evaporated.

‘What caused such revulsion?’, I can imagine some of you ask.

The book has generally had a very favorable response from purchasers, and those from far afield too. Book reviews on the Internet are also almost universally positive. Indeed, negative opinions are hard to find.

Snapshot of Amazon ratings 7th June 2026

‘So why is your view so out of tune with the vast majority of others?’- you may well ask. I will expand upon my misgivings in the next few posts, but firstly I want to say that there is nothing personal between me and Scull/Hammond). I have never met them, and our few communications (many years ago) have been nothing but polite and cordial. Until my purchase of Adv. of TB - 2014 I had high regard for their scholarship having acquired several of their academic works.

That opinion drastically changed.

I’m wondering whether any of you folk already know where I’m going and see matters the way I still do. Anyhow, to voice my very negative sentiments - I’m going to offer multiple reasons and thus split this thread up into several topics, where sadly I will decry and unfortunately lambast Hammond and Scull for a production which, in my opinion, is worse than just a tragedy.

These three subheadings deal with:

(a) Ethical Implications
(b) The Physical Product
(c) Erroneous Scholarship



… to be continued

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Priya: I only have the 1960's issue of the Tom Bombadil Adventures, no other books. So I can only read your comments of the other versions you're reading. What added are not-published poems and notes, left on the shelves of Tolkien. I wonder is that really so interesting for publishing? Or is it that the Tolkien Estate needs money with the publishing of them? The descendents don't seem to see what their (great)-grandfather found important to tell the story.

[Priya]

Hello Aiks

I hope you are recovering strongly from your health issues. I genuinely do!

the Tolkien Estate needs money with the publishing of them?

The descendents don't seem to see what their (great)-grandfather found important to tell the story.

I think on both accounts you’ve hit the nail on the head!




… continued from my previous post


Ethical Implications

Now I’m not going to discuss legalities. Christopher Tolkien was without question granted lawful permission to do as he liked with his father’s published works. And undoubtedly he approved of this update. Quite why - I’m not sure, although I have my suspicions.

Anyhow, my main gripe stems from the sheer degree of additions/changes made to an already released book that Tolkien Sr. was perfectly happy with. Scull and Hammond offer no evidence (because probably none exists) that J.R.R. Tolkien ever considered or planned adding new poetry or providing further information on Bombadil for a radically new revision. The Professor, from all the information we have, was content with the 1962 product, and didn’t even push for some minor edits to be incorporated in a future release.

So with such contentment - it’s difficult to ethically justify Scull & Hammond instigating such profoundly disrespectful changes.

Have they ‘desecrated holy ground’ with such voluminous alterations?

Shouldn’t we just leave the Professor’s work alone?

Or should we meddle with it?

What do you folk think?


… to be continued

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Hi Priya! That is quite some hammering of me then. On ethics, to make a long discussion short. I am vehemently against any alterations to any form of written, visual or sound records: how ugly, immoral, unethical or offensive it can be. They are created and coloured through the eyes in certain times and tells us what people thought and considered. What the general consensus was in a certain period of time. I call them timestamps. We should never rewrite history.

I don't feel we should meddle with the professor's legendarium. Two or three centuries from now our descendents look back at our time. What shall be to them what is ethically immoral or offensive, what's normal to us? I don't think the professor's work is 'holy ground'. Tolkien's other scientific researches for the university is a different story. He did that as an employee and is owned by this institution.

But with everything we leave behind after death, the only way from stopping people to alter it, is to take it up in a testament, how it all should be treated in future times. But since the descendents are not writing or publishing 'completely new content' in this legendarium, there is some stupilation left behind on who owns the writing rights and as it looks now, even his children never wrote another expension tale after Tolkien's death in 1973. But only published what was written already, left behind, was not published yet and adapted it for the sales market. What Christopher did...

[Priya]

Hello Aiks

As you don’t possess Adv. of TB - 2014, I thought I’d give a high level overview of the changes incorporated into what Scull & Hammond on the inside of the dust jacket describe as a ‘Special Edition’. The issue being referenced/discussed below is the hardcover version.

Please note that the book’s front cover title is still J.R.R. Tolkien The Adventures of Tom Bombadil. Apart from some font changes, this mimics the original 1962 release.

Inside after ‘Contents’ there follows 20 pages of Scull and Hammond produced ‘Introduction’ material. Only then do we get to an unchanged ‘Preface’ that JRRT kicked the original 1962 issue off with. After the Professor’s original poetry, we then have a huge chunk of Scull & Hammond’s ‘Commentary’ on each and every poem followed by a ‘Gallery’ of new illustrations. Rounding off the book are two new ‘Appendices’ and a ‘Bibliography’.

JRRT’s original work only comprises circa 80 pages of a roughly 300 page book. Astoundingly, this works out to be approximately 1/4 of the total new publication.

This is utterly insane.

Complete madness.

The Professor’s own work is absolutely swamped by a mass of material totally unsanctioned by him. His poetry is literally sandwiched between huge globs of what I will kindly call ‘peripheral miscellany’.

I have little doubt that the Professor would have been livid. If I were in his position, I certainly would have been apoplectic with rage.

Without even examining Scull & Hammond’s contribution in any sort of detail, I’m flabbergasted as to how:

(a) they have dared to meddle to such an extent with the Professor’s work.

(b) they have the first and last say - reducing his effort to essentially secondary filler material.

(c) they have drowned out his poetry so as to be literally forgettable given the amount the reader has to absorb. I’m totally sure that is not what Tolkien would have wanted. But that is the result, whether they admit it or not.

Scull and Hammond have absolutely missed the point having severely deviated from the Professor’s desire and intent. Originally, Tolkien envisaged a booklet meant to comprise of a single poem illustrated between verses and written to provide pleasure to his nonagenarian aunt. Tolkien later decided to add other poems that more or less ‘collected’ (as well include illustrations) such that a pretense of the being part of the mythology could be maintained.

But the point is that the production was meant to be a slim book of poems.

The preface was kept to a minimum intentionally.

The reader was meant to focus on the poetry.

It was all meant to be art.

Scull & Hammond have killed that sense of eager anticipation and joy one gets from the original in not having to wade through a bunch of extraneous stuff.

They have killed the Professor’s sense of artistry. They have forgotten that people bought this book first and foremost for Tolkien’s poetry. Academic vivisection and historical biography (recounted in whatever shape or form) are matters the Professor deeply despised.

They do not belong inside this work.

I have no doubt that Tolkien would have been hopping mad. Because now his book has morphed into a monstrosity, losing the flavor and simple design he intended and was happy for it to be.


… to be continued