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 them 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

[Drífa]

I have The Tolkien Reader (1971), which includes "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil". Unfortunately, Tolkien's work was meddled with in the 2014 revised edition. But as you say, Christopher approved it. All we can do is mourn the outcome. Or enjoy the original work that is still available.

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.

Seems like the actual cover was quite different from the one used in the 2014 edited edition. The original cover had a character in a boat. Probably Tom. It appears that the edited 2014 edition used the Ballantine Books 1966 cover of The Tolkien Reader, with some changes. Right? Or are all these covers confusing me?


I look forward to reading your take on these three points.
(a) Ethical Implications
(b) The Physical Product
(c) Erroneous Scholarship

[Priya]

Hello Drifa

For the original 1962 publication of The Adventures of Tom Bombadil - Tom was featured on the back cover (see picture below). According to Scull & Hammond (pg. 20 of The Adv of TB - 2014) Tolkien’s preference was for Tom to be on the front side. Presumably it was too late to make a change back in 1962 - but Scull & Hammond decided to make this emendation for this new issue. The Tolkien Reader of 1966 set the precedent for the change, and thus this newer format seems sensible.

… continued from my previous post.

A radical set of alterations made posthumously to someone else’s published work and then reissued under the same title is obviously a morally wrong thing to do. For of course, the original writer has absolutely no say on the changes.

It doesn’t matter whether it is legal or not.

You and I know it’s just plain wrong.

In this day and age - we don’t see it happen very much. Because otherwise chaos would ensue along with a free for all. Yes, there are many who would love to cash in on the fame of others. Especially where copyright has passed and there are no legal heirs left (or willing) to contest.

Can you imagine, someone in the scientific community taking Einstein’s paper on General Relativity, adding in a few equations and a bunch of discussion and then reissuing it as a ‘Special Edition’ with the same title and Einstein’s name at the forefront?

The scientific community would be in uproar. Not only would it be unethical, it would be bordering on criminal.

This is is just one example of how ridiculous things could get. So it’s a slippery slope the Tolkien Estate has decided to head down. And one might rightfully wonder - what’s to come on the ‘Special Edition’ list?

Are we going to see The Hobbit reissued with The Quest of Erebor from Unfinished Tales added in? How would you feel about an extra chapter inserted at the beginning featuring Gandalf’s trials in convincing Thorin that Bilbo was a suitable burglar?

Or how about The Lord of the Rings updated with a fuller tale of The Hunt for the Ring as also specified in Unfinished Tales?

How do you think the Professor would have reacted?

How do you think he would have felt seeing someone else’s name added to the title covers? Do you think he would be favorable to the excuse: ‘but we found some more of the story among your papers’?

Do you think such rationale would be any more acceptable than the one Scull and Hammond gave for including new poetry?:

“We did choose to include the brief Once upon a Time, because it features Tom and Goldberry, …”.

Really? What an incredibly lame justification!!!

On that basis - I think we shouldn’t be surprised if The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings one day do get updated as I’ve conjectured above. Expect to see hundreds of pages of new and extraneous ‘Commentary’ too !

Although I’m a 1000% sure Tolkien would have flipped his lid at what Scull and Hammond have produced, I want to provide more evidential thoughts of his dislike of ‘meddling’. Plus I want to touch on how Scull and Hammond could/should have approached a ‘re-release’.

… to be continued

[Drífa]

Priya
Ah, I should have looked more closely at the 1962 edition. I did not think to look at the back cover. That does look like Tom on the back, of course. They did not use the back cover on the original edition, though. I wonder if the character on the original front cover is not from the Poem "The Sea Bell?

I do not have a copy of the 2014 edited copy. I am not sure, by your reaction to it, that I will purchase it. I will keep an eye on this thread for the changes you post. Thanks!

[Priya]

Hello Drifa

I wonder if the character on the original front cover is not from the Poem "The Sea Bell?

I think that’s a very reasonable prognosis. Below is what Scull & Hammond offer up on their website:

“Here we write, concerning the original cover art, that ‘it features the mariner from Errantry on the upper cover’. John Rateliff has argued in his blog that this is the narrator of The Sea-Bell: ‘Not only do he and his ship lack any of the panoply so prominently featured in Errantry but he actually holds in his hand the sea-shell that awakens the sea-longing in The Sea-Bell’, and he is sailing past a bell-buoy (‘I heard a sea-bell swing in the swell’). This could well be correct; and yet, the figure in the boat does not seem emotionally driven as the narrator is at the start of The Sea-Bell (although during his voyage he is ‘wound in a sleep’), and is certainly not ragged enough for the narrator at the end of the poem. And at the same time, the boat is more elaborate (not to say, cheerful, with a pink sail and red pennant!) than we have ever pictured it. It is also possible that the boat and figure combine elements of both The Sea-Bell and Errantry, among the many details that Pauline Baynes put into the cover art.”





… continued from my previous post

Scull and Hammond had options. They could, if they had been sensible, taken all their collated scholarly information for Adv. of TB - 2014, and made a separate article. They could have placed their material on their website or tried publishing it in a reputable journal - such as Mythlore or Tolkien Studies etc. They could even have published a book under a different title so as not to confuse it with the original. Perhaps they could have named it (and formatted it accordingly) ‘The Annotated Adventures of Tom Bombadil’ or even something like ‘A Scholarly Study of the Poems in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil’. That would have been a completely acceptable way of getting their research and views across.

Instead these two individuals decided to hang directly off the coattails of the Professor’s work, attracted by the lure of greater sales, and giving the impression that he would have approved. No other Tolkien fan/researcher or even family member has dared to legally or illegally publish a book with substantial rewrites and called it The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings have they? Yet these two clowns have with inconsiderate arrogance and little thought crossed into forbidden territory which only the foolish would dare to venture.

In 1936 Tolkien gave a seminal lecture on an Old English poem calling it Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics. All dedicated scholars (presumably even Scull & Hammond) have read it and digested what Tolkien had to say. A big part of Tolkien’s eloquent but withering prognosis was that till then, academics had failed to treat this important document from the Middle Ages as the poet intended. Researchers had forgotten that the work was ‘art’. In a nutshell, they had not studied the ‘poem’ as ‘poetry’:

“It is of Beowulf, then, as a poem that I wish to speak; …”.
– The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, Beowulf – Sir Israel Gollancz Lecture of 1936, HarperCollins, 1983 (my underlined emphasis)

Instead they had treated it as a “quarry” to mine information about the author, history, etc.

“Beowulf has been used as a quarry of fact and fancy far more assiduously than it has been studied as a work of art.”
– The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, Beowulf – Sir Israel Gollancz Lecture of 1936, HarperCollins, 1983

I, and I am pretty sure Tolkien would have too, lay the same charge on Scull & Hammond. For they too have failed to understand that The Adventures of Tom Bombadil was never meant to be anything but a set of stand alone poems. It also was meant to be art. But sadly they have gone down the same ruinous road and used the poetry as a ‘quarry’ to mine information about the book’s ‘main character’. In conjunction with Tolkien’s correspondences they have tried to ‘crack’ or ‘dig into’ the ‘mystery’ and also to shed light on the author’s mind and creative process. But the worst transgression of all is the inclusion of their own thoughts and conclusions within Tolkien’s very own product.

Once again, Scull & Hammond have violated the spirit of both the original product and ignored the Professor’s desire. Such actions were perilously foolish for those that fell foul when Tolkien was alive. For, as I will emphasize in my next post, Tolkien could get very angry with those who meddled with his work.


… to be continued

[Priya]

… continued from my previous post

Tolkien was definitely fussy and picky with his text. He insisted that his nomenclature was followed to a tee:

“… the impertinent compositors have taken it upon themselves to correct, as they suppose, my spelling and grammar … I let off my irritation in a snorter to A. and U. which produced a grovel.”
- Letter #138, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

“Penguin Books had, I suppose, no licence to edit my work, and should have reproduced faithfully the printed copy; and at least out of courtesy to Allen and Unwin and myself should have addressed some enquiry before they proceeded to correct the text.”
- Letter #236, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

And if you think I’m exaggerating or being particularly selective in which quotes I’ve chosen, below is how Tolkien reacted when the Dutch translation wasn’t up to scratch:

“The matter is (to me) important; it has disturbed and annoyed me greatly, … May I say now at once that I will not tolerate any similar tinkering with the personal nomenclature. … I do know something about nomenclature, and have specially studied it, and I am actually very angry indeed.”
- Letter #190, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981 (my underlined emphasis,)

Another translator, Dr. Ohlmarks of Sweden had tried to convert The Hobbit into his native language just a little before the Dutch effort, but again was severely criticized:

“I wish to avoid a repetition with my experience of the Swedish translation of The Hobbit.”
- Letter #188, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

Tolkien admitted he was a pedantic don, but nevertheless it was ‘his way or the highway’. Most emphatically he laid down the law:

“No alterations, major or minor, re-arrangements, or abridgements of this text will be approved by me – unless they proceed from myself or from direct consultation.”
- Letter #188, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

Yet these were only translations! Can you imagine how Tolkien Sr. would have reacted at someone meddling (beyond very minor editing) with his original? Yes, someone packing it full of their own research and opinions!

I have no doubt that he would have been hopping mad.

There are very few recorded occasions where Tolkien professed to be angry, or at the very least annoyed, in his letters. Fiddling with his work without permission or due care undoubtedly aggravated him to the point of intense rage. I doubt that Scull and Hammond were oblivious of such matters before embarking on this Special Edition. So though some sort of utter lunacy gripped these two in thinking their ‘cause’ was just - it is the ‘effect’ on Tolkien’s mythology of their tampering that tragically constitutes an atrocity.

Why?

Because, as I will explain in my next post, they have ruined his carefully constructed conceit.

And they knew exactly what they were doing.

… to be continued

[Priya]

… continued from my previous post

In the brief Preface to the 1962 The Adventures of Tom Bombadil Tolkien told us that the verses within were extracted from the Red Book of Westmarch. Thus, without doubt, they were integrally part of it and formed a small part to Hobbit folklore/legends:

“The Red Book contains a large number of verses. … The present selection … appear to have been made by Hobbits … “.
- Preface, The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, 1962

The entire mythology was derived from the Red Book. Tolkien wanted it that way. And he assigned himself the role of translator, narrator and reporter to supposedly ‘historical’ documents from the end of the Third Age that he had discovered. How and where he did not say. Nevertheless, Tolkien’s intention was there was meant to be no indication within his published books (which formed part of the mythology) that from scratch, he had ‘created’ or ‘invented’ it all.

The 1962 The Adventures of Tom Bombadil was an extension to the ‘conceit’ constructed for The Hobbit and the 1954-1955 The Lord of the Rings:

“This tale, which has grown to be almost a history of the Great War of the Ring, is drawn for the most part from the memoirs of the renowned Hobbits, Bilbo and Frodo, as they are preserved in the Red Book of Westmarch.”
- Foreword, The Lord of the Rings, First Edition

Looking back at the First Edition Foreword Tolkien was upset that he’d written far too much about himself and his friends:

“I dedicate the book to all admirers of Bilbo, but especially to my sons and my daughter, and to my friends the Inklings. …”.
- Foreword, The Lord of the Rings, First Edition

He regretted it as his personal stuff took away from the ‘reality’ of his world:

“This Foreword I should wish very much in any case to cancel. Confusing (as it does) real personal matters with the "machinery" of the Tale is a serious mistake.”
- The Appendix on Languages, The Peoples of Middle-earth,1996

So by 1962, for The Adventures of Tom Bombadil nothing personal about himself was included. With considerable sweat and trouble, the conceit was maintained:

“… I found it easier and more amusing (for myself) to represent to you in the form of a ridiculous editorial fiction what I have done to the verses, … I hope you are not disappointed by my efforts.”
- The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #237, Edited by H. Carpenter, 1981

So what do Scull and Hammond in their stupidity go ahead and do?

They provide a brand new Introduction which destroyed Tolkien’s desire by absolutely making it clear that the Professor was the inventor of it all:

“Tom Bombadil … does not clearly belong to any one of he groups of intelligent beings established in Tolkien’s private mythology, …?”
- Introduction, The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, 2014 Edition (my underlined emphasis)

“Nor could there be a definite answer to the question Who (or What) is Tom Bombadil, when his creator did not have one himself.”
- Introduction, The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, 2014 Edition (my underlined emphasis)

Look - it’s not our place up to obliterate a thoughtfully constructed aura of reality!

It’s beyond justifiable.

In fact it’s deplorable!

I can imagine Scull and Hammond in their defense might point to the 1966 Second Edition of The Lord of the Rings Foreword whereby Tolkien provided some historical development data. But there was a very good reason for this - namely the Ace Books affair. Causing Tolkien immense distress - an American publisher had printed an unauthorized pirated version of The Lord of the Rings.

If we take a critical look - it becomes apparent Tolkien wrote the Second Edition Foreword very cleverly and carefully. Yes he clearly states that he composed The Lord of the Rings and in association to that provides time spans and important real world dates. But of course his book was “drawn” from information translated from the Red Book. It might be presumed that during his ‘feigned’ research and translating effort he came to enjoy the ‘end’ tale and felt others would too.

Crucially, on the surface to the casual reader and more importantly a potential judge - he purposely gave the ‘impression’ of being the actual creator. For not to acknowledge that would have meant the original Red Book was written by someone else (or others). In which case his translation could get tangled up in copyright laws. After all, if Tolkien wasn’t the original source - why should he receive copyright protection? Given the ample contrary evidence such an argument might not stand in a court of law - but it certainly muddies the waters.

Anyhow these sort of thoughts and the weighing of risks surely must have gone through his mind. Nonetheless, he could still point to the 1954-1955 First Edition Foreword. It still existed, and could not be denied - and that was enough. More to the point, in the 1966 update when flummoxed about the great battles to come before the gates of Minas Tirith and Mordor - we still find:

“It was during 1944 that, leaving the loose ends and perplexities of a war which it was my task to conduct or at least to report, I forced myself to tackle the journey of Frodo to Mordor.”
- Foreword, The Lord of the Rings, Second Edition (my underlined emphasis)

Yes Tolkien’s mindset was such that he wanted to maintain his conceit. For us to dismantle it - is simply wrong and extremely unethical. I cannot emphasize this enough!

… to be continued