Tolkien Gateway

Letter 242

(Difference between revisions)
 
m
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{letter|242}}
+
{{letter infobox
 +
| #=242
 +
| to=[[Allen and Unwin]]
 +
| date= [[28 November]] [[1962]]
 +
| subject=''[[The Adventures of Tom Bombadil]]''
 +
}}{{letter|242}}
 
==Summary==
 
==Summary==
This fragment of a letter, dated [[November 28]], [[1962]], was addressed to [[Stanley Unwin]]. It involves the publishing of ''[[The Adventures of Tom Bombadil]]'', six days earlier. At the time, two reviews had been published: one by ''The Times Literary Supplement'', and one in ''The Listener''. Both were positive, but Tolkien thinks both reviewers started out not wanting to be amused. He remains puzzled as to why "if a 'professor' shows any knowledge of his professional techniques it must be 'waggery', but if a writer shows, say, knowledge of law or law-courts it is held interesting and creditable."
+
Following the publication of ''[[The Adventures of Tom Bombadil]]'' six days earlier, two reviews had been published: one by ''The Times Literary Supplement'', and one in ''The Listener''. Both were positive, but Tolkien thought both reviewers started out not wanting to be amused. He remained puzzled as to why "if a 'professor' shows any knowledge of his professional techniques it must be 'waggery', but if a writer shows, say, knowledge of law or law-courts it is held interesting and creditable."
 
{{letters}}
 
{{letters}}

Latest revision as of 01:05, 22 June 2011

The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Letter 242
RecipientAllen and Unwin
Date28 November 1962
Subject(s)The Adventures of Tom Bombadil

Letter 242 is a letter written by J.R.R. Tolkien and published in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

[edit] Summary

Following the publication of The Adventures of Tom Bombadil six days earlier, two reviews had been published: one by The Times Literary Supplement, and one in The Listener. Both were positive, but Tolkien thought both reviewers started out not wanting to be amused. He remained puzzled as to why "if a 'professor' shows any knowledge of his professional techniques it must be 'waggery', but if a writer shows, say, knowledge of law or law-courts it is held interesting and creditable."