thanks for your answer. I do agree : Carpenter s biography is the best, even if it is sometimes too exclusively factual ; I do not like Pearce s, nor Grotta s,Message 1 of 4 , Feb 6, 2002View Sourcethanks for your answer.
I do agree : Carpenter's biography is the best, even if it is sometimes too exclusively factual ; I do not like Pearce's, nor Grotta's, not to speak of Coren's...
The bibliography of Tolkien's writings has been updated and corrected in
various reprintings. I believe the text remains unchanged, though a few
factual errors - mostly about the details of the composition of Tolkien's
works - have been uncovered in the course of work on the "History of
Carpenter's biography remains remarkably accurate and very insightful, far
superior to any other biographies of Tolkien.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
... I wonder what you mean, too exclusively factual. As opposed to what? It seems to me that Carpenter shows great insight into Tolkien s personality andMessage 2 of 4 , Feb 6, 2002View SourceAt 08:52 AM 2/6/2002 , Vincent Ferré wrote:
>I do agree : Carpenter's biography is the best, even if it is sometimes tooI wonder what you mean, "too exclusively factual." As opposed to what?
>exclusively factual ;
It seems to me that Carpenter shows great insight into Tolkien's
personality and motivations. Other writers, particularly Michael White,
finding the facts not exciting enough for them, have resorted to inventing
the motivations they think Tolkien should have had.
Joseph Pearce does not do this: his biography is a fairly decent book, I
thought: he just did not have much new to say, nor did he delve very far
into his special topic, Tolkien's religion.