A is for Aragorn, B is for Balrog, C is for WHERE IS NOUMENAL CHAPTER 2 BEN?!

(While I’m not certain there is any audience at all for Book reviews, I decided it would be a good exercise this morning to help me recuperate from 4 days of intensive assignment work. But fear not – I will be working on Noumenal all day today! We’ll get there, I promise!)

For a guy who only released two fantasy novels in his life time, Tolkien sure set an absolute standard for worldbuilding. From the conception of Ardur all the way through the countless ages of lamps, stars and hobbits of middle earth, the bloke’s creative output was absolutely wild! They’re still publishing books of his new lore after his son’s death!

As a result, however, the prose of the stories can sometimes be a little dense. What, with all the kings to remember, the Dozen elvish languages, all that stuff about Saruman defecting. To give the man credit, though, Tolkien usually does take time to explain a lot of the more important concepts within the books themselves, but it’s not always substantial. Well, that gives us a Merry (ha ha) excuse to read s’more support materials on the guy!

Today’s pick, however, is not your Robert Foster book. It is a more controversial pick, perhaps even a misleading one.

The review – Pretty elven pictures

David Day’s bestiary isn’t the most recent publication: first made in ’79, it was the superfan’s first ever homage to Tolkien. The man has reprinted and remade this book for years since, as the demand has still been fairly high. My edition is 1991: a lucky find by my brother (again!) at a charity shop.

Now, the last thing a Tolkien fan would want is for their book of lore to be a great big wodge of text. That said, David Day has done a pretty splendid job at imitating Tolkien’s mythic way with prose, with all the intricate repetitions and vaguely unfamiliar geographical terms that supply it’s characteristic richness. But we can do better for a bestiary, can’t we?

Thus, he assembled a surly troop of eleven (not really) dwarven engravers, led by Debra Zuckerman of the white wharf. Their names among them were Lidia Postma, John Davis, Jaroslav Bradlac, Ian Miller, Allan Curless, John Blanche, Pauline Martin, Michael Foreman, Sue Porter, Linda Garland and not least Victor Ambrus, with his deep blotch shadows and faded brights dancing like elves in sylvan shade.

Arguably, they are the really big selling point of this novel – predating even the jolly Ranking Bass adaption, this was the most definitive depiction of Tolkiens critters. I know the promise of “36 full-colour illustrations!” rings a bit crusty in 2023, but strewth, they’re all neat takes! To list a few:

• Ian Miller (of Lovecraft fame)’s eerily biomechanical dragons: a refreshing twist on a long overrated beast. Special mention to his needle-nightmare ents!
• Sue Porter’s pastelly shade in Cerin Amroth and rolling hills.
• Alan Curless’ intricate map of middle earth – not quite the same shape as Chris Tolkien’s take (more on that later), but pretty all the same. A shout out also to his postively METAL take on Witch King and the orcs – never have skeleton riders looked so moody! Also, evidence that he can draw humans very well – not to dunk on his classic Redwall warriors, of course.
• Lidia Postma hobbits. Perhaps one of the most wholesome (and Tolkien accurate) designs I’ve ever seen – they look positively anachronistic with their striped overcoats, embroideried blouses and even a high chair for the babies! It felt refreshing after all the Jackson-esq ruggedness of the other characters…but speaking of Peter Jackson, her designs for Frodo, Sam and ESPECIALLY Gollum look familiar ey? (You wouldn’t believe how varied Gollum designs get)

Now, this is a writing blog, so I’ll snip it there. As a mediocre artist, I seriously appreciate seeing other people’s interpretations of characters over the ages – while relying purely on illustrations for visualisation can be reductive, eyecandy is a nice treat every now and again!

Anyway, back to writing. This is maybe where things get a bit controversial…

The writing itself and controversy – Fault lines

I’m going to be totally honest with you. I’m the sort of person who, upon overcoming the initial inertia of starting reading, cannot stop until he’s reached the index. 278 pages isn’t really impenetrable; it’s still a fair whack to binge through in one day (A weekend, thank god).

You should not follow my example.

The Tolkien Bestiary is sort of made to be a pretty companion book – something to consolidate the reading of the main series, simalr Simalir Silamarilli GOD Silmarillion included, now that all the lovely adaptions are out. As a bestiary, it focuses entirely on the species of the world: there are some rough summaries of each storyline for the relevant characters of a breed, but not inherently spoiler heavy. We all know, by this point, that Sauron is going to fail; that the orcs are probably not going to stick around and that the Glaurung wasn’t in a retirement home while Smaug boiled the Dale: the book asbtains from telling us how they met their ends so that we can anticipate it when reading. This factor is all well and good.

However, for this reason, you’re not to expect the most exhilirating narrative, though it’s style does set it above dreary wiki descriptions and horribly predictable TV Tropes summaries. Still, it does get very repetitive – you will tire especially quickly of all the pandering Elf descriptions if you binge them. A few passages are reduplicated near verbatim – a bit like authentic greek poetry. If you’re popping in and out the book, like you should, that isn’t a problem: the writing in pinch is pleasant. But if you, like me, were coaxed by all the pretty pictures and felt guilty about skipping over the text to gawk at ’em all, you’re gonna have a

Bad time.

(Be grateful I’m not spamming those obnoxious gifs like those Goodreads reviewers)

Anyhoo, this review needs to perhaps address a more controversial aspect of David Day’s bestiary: inconsistencies. The team working on the series isn’t entirely true to Tolkien’s vision of middle earth and there is a good deal of inference. Chris Tolkien was really, really not impressed. In fact, he called the author an Ass, “more of a burglar than a writer” and went out his way to sue him several times. The fans of the legendarium, understandably, are also prone to beetroot rage at the sound of his name. Perhaps this is why the book ended up in a charity shop in the first place?

To start with the art, the pretty “Lung” map that Curless did isn’t…quite how the geography is middle earth is described in the books. According to some sources, the director sort of cobbled all the locations together into one big convenient supercontinent and called it a day – they didn’t account for continential drift, the sinking of a nation or the complete annihilation of a couple of mountain ranges.I am currently aware of many fanatics who are extremely pissed he didn’t draw Numenor in the shape of a christmas decoration – Tolkien’s idea. Also, a redditor I saw thought Aaragorn looked concerningly similar to Tommy Wiseau, nearly thirty years before his grand debut as an early internet meme.

Then, more damningly, there are factual inaccuracies. Turin Tarambar dying partly from Glaurung’s blood – It’s more the terrible truth the beast reveals and the fate of poor Nienor – that trolls were bred from Ents, that the watcher in the water was bred by Morgoth as a kraken despite specifying EARLIER that all of his creations were aquapobic and so on. In short, a lot of faulty speculation that will drive most die-hard fans out of Ardur’s orbit, past the timeless halls and all the way into the dark void where Morgoth sulks. Mind, some of the information that is true feels a bit unnecessary or dubious as well – I was bewildered to find that the comparison between the black Haradgrim and the Orcs was an actual quotation. Not to be revisionist or call tolkien a racial profiler – I know well that the orc analogy troubled him and that he didn’t find time to correct it – but it’s showing it’s age poorly, isn’t it?

Conclusion – Forbidden texts

I was fortunate to be shielded by a good degree of unfamiliarity with the franchise – I’ve only read the hobbit and Turin’s tale – but to learn of all these blunders is rather disappointing. The art, like I said, was beautiful, and the prose genuinely had some effort put into it to cut the tedium. But this could have been spent on it’s own story – it’s own world. This is taking someone else’s franchise and lording around like you’re the boss! A waste, I tell you. For that, and also the craven fear that the fanbase will garrot me for spreading misinformation, I can’t recommend it.

But do I regret reading it? O, heck no. Reading it, then learning of the controversy around it, is highly informative – be it for writing’s sake or art’s sake. I know for one that I am a horribly inconsistent artist at times – what’s to say my writing, without necessary consideration and resource, will be any better? Can expanding upon someone else’s ideas, unofficially or officially, be a moral quandry? Can you appreciate the high quality art of something without being tainted by the inaccuracies? Questions, problematising – it’s good for inspiring your work! Anything can be salvageable – in the dark night, there is always something to set alight.

Right, now that’s over with, I’ll get on with my bloody Noumenal project.

Tolkien’s Bestiary is probably available at a broad range of charity shops and, based off some reddit findings, Costco, for anywhere beneath £10.00. If you really want to give it a look for art’s sake, give it a shot, but beware the Fanbase!

(PS: Have a picture of the greek Godess Nemesis I drew last week. I’m working on some designs for my Noumenal project characters, too!)

One final update; ’cause I’m immature: