Talk:The Atlas of Middle-earth/Archive 1

Referencing for negative comments
There is really only one reference here dealing with the problems with this text, and it's from an amazon review, which I would not have thought was a credible or stable source of information. I got this from the same page: "Martinez seems to believe that he is the be-all and end-all of Tolkien critics, even to the point where he reviews his own works to boost their Amazon.com star ratings." In this light I feel the article is currently too negative; Fonstad's books are not street directories but works of art. I'm certainly biased on this issue but I feel that the article is currently biased too. 59.167.44.149 (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I also note that all of the criticism was added and sourced by one editor, which is not ideal. 59.167.44.149 (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the section in question per the above issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.102.94 (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added it back. There's nothing unfair there.  If you have serious responses to Martinez's criticism, let's see them. In my mind we do readers a greater disservice by giving the impression that Fonstad is somehow authoritative. Elphion (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The language of the last paragraph is pretty biased toward negative, using words like "futile attempt" from the Amazon review, despite the fact that her reasoning for shaving the 100 miles from Eriador was never explained and could easily have been a mistake. The reason given (i.e. to bring Bilbo's and Frodo's journeys into accord) seems to be the opinion of the reviewer, based on a section of the atlas in which the odd timing of the journeys is discussed, although changes in geography were not proposed as a solution. Indeed, no intentional "adjustments" to Tolkien's geography were ever explicitly stated in the book, and any personal geographical ideas that she "imposed" on the landscape were done in locations that were not adequately mapped by official cartographers nor clearly described in the text. For instance, in the downs example in the second footnote, the reviewer erroneously believed that the downs "clearly parallel the Entwash", presumably because they "...ran in a line straight toward the north", but Fonstad's mapping is closer to the truth, as a "line of low humpbacked downs" could be seen to the north as the Entwash wound "far away to the left", meaning that the downs did run in lines perpendicular to the river. All in all, while there are occasional errors, they are hardly on every page, as the review suggests but does not describe, and are more likely caused by Fonstad's lack of access to the latter 'Histories of Middle-earth' or an unnoticed mistakes that crop up in any work of such scale than any malicious desire to impose her own adjustments on Tolkien's landscape. 96.60.249.227 (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If you read in the text that the line of the hills runs to the north but then draw a line of hills that runs east and west, you are pretty much departing from the text. Tolkien's text nowhere suggests that the hills run east and west. The passage you mention comes as Aragorn & co. are approaching the hills, which still lie some distance off to the north and west, so yes of course the river still lies off to the left. When they reach "the southernmost slope", the slopes rise to "bare ridges that ran in a straight line towards the North", and only a narrow strip separates them from the river. Aragorn remembers that the downs run some eight leagues to the north, and then to the northwest toward the point where the river emerges from the forest, again, paralleling the course of the river.

This is not what Fonstad drew. In fact the entire geological structure she assumes for the Wold is suspect. She obviously assumed, from the name, that Tolkien had in mind the Wold in southeastern England; but in his drawing, the hills of the Wold look more like the Lincolnshire and Yorkshire Wolds that he was familiar with -- and these have very different geological underpinnings. It is unlikely that Tolkien gave much thought to the geology of Middle-earth in general or to the Wold in particular; but he manifestly does not describe the dome-like structure that Fonstad posits, and the details she elaborates for the latter conflict with details of the text.

I don't doubt that Fonstad tried to make her vision conform to Tolkien's. She clearly read widely to gather as much context as possible. No one is suggesting that she imposed her own ideas with "malicious" intent. But she herself writes (p. 156): "as with other maps, assumptions and estimates had to be made, and those judgments are certainly open to interpretation." The problem is that her assumptions are often contradicted by Tolkien's text or by material that surfaced later. Fonstad's book is a ground-breaking effort, and the book is still useful on many levels; but as Martinez laments, it's a pity no attempt was made in the second edition to bring it up to date.

And yes, any attempt to reconcile Bilbo's journey with Frodo's (as Fonstad does attempt, by making "judgments and estimates") is bound to be futile; for as Christopher Tolkien observed, the accounts are simply mutually inconsistent -- and Tolkien's several attempts to fix things only made them worse. Fonstad does not discuss in detail her own adjustments, but I cannot believe that she could lose 100 miles without intending it -- she was much more careful than that. She should simply have accepted the inconsistencies and reproduced the Angle as it is shown in the General Map.

As for the ad hominem attack on Martinez at the Amazon site, it should have no bearing here, and should not even have been cited.

Elphion (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would still argue that unless there is a better source that explains Fonstad's reasoning behind losing 100 miles than a reviewer's opinion, the Frodo/Bilbo Trollshaws journey explanation should be removed, along with some of the strongly critical wording such as "futile attempt" and "riddled with a variety of errors". The error itself should, of course, be mentioned, but not presumptively explained. Elphion's quote from p.156 would be a much better reference for footnote 2 than the random example of the Downs around the Wold. Likewise, the example in footnote 3 would, in my opinion, better appear in the main text (perhaps in a separate section of complete and clearly cited errata), with that footnote instead referencing the fact that only nine books of the History were mentioned in the Foreword and only eight were cited in the Selected References section.


 * As for the Downs, the descriptions are as vague as the original maps. Elphion's quote of the downs running in a line toward the north suggests, to me, the exact opposite of what he said. I read it as numerous hills, stretched long on the E-W axis and short on the N-S axis, running in waves toward the north. I further support this reading by the three hunters coming upon a "southernmost slope" and later a most "northerly of the downs". If the downs stretched parallel to the river, then the slopes would be on the east and west, not the north and south. Likewise, after the hunters went down the "northern slope" of the hill, the riders passed beside them, going south along "the western skirts of the downs", not along the westernmost slope as you would expect. If this is not enough proof, I would argue that the downs around the Wold are too vaguely described for us to clearly know Tolkien's intent, and Fonstad's version, which I prefer, is as valid as the alternate one that Elphion and the amazon reviewer subscribe to.


 * Still, the opinions aside, the fact that the last bit of this article is worded with bias and poorly supported beg for a rewrite by somebody more familiar with Wikipedia's standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.249.227 (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the last paragraph (the controversial in question) for two reasons. The only external source is a reader-contributed Amazon book review, which does not constitute a valid source in any Wikipedia article (particularly one that constitutes a tiny minority view that does not back up claims with actual published measures of discrepancy). The second reason is that the second two "notes" that support the paragraph clearly are ORIGINAL RESEARCH, which is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. This removal is not an attempt to exonerate errors from an atlas made from texts riddled with inconsistencies, or a rebuttal to Martinez's pontifications (whose writings, however, seem to always be made in a vaguely critical mode rather than backed up with actual careful measurements with descriptions for how he has made the measurements) but rather simple Wikipedia policy. If there are validly published geographical alternatives or pros/cons, these represent encyclopedic-quality content and can be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.38.224 (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Fonstad geographer cartographer
This article needs to explain Fonstad's academic and professional background in geography (Master's degree) and cartography (professor?).
 * Done.

Ideally it should use that to account for some aspects of the book including departures from or extensions of Tolkien canon. I'm not sure that can be done except by original research, as "companion books" do not get (or deserve) the professional, critical attention given to originals.

Tolkien was a professional scholar of language and literature, evidently an amateur chronologist too. Anne McCaffrey was an amateur geographer (science requirement at Radcliffe College). So the Atlas of Middle-Earth and Atlas of Pern differ in their relation to canon (but the Pern book is short on dates). It will be the opposite if someone with background in one of Tolkien's fields writes companion books on the language and poetry of Middle-Earth and Pern. --P64 (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a paragraph on Fonstad after editing Karen Wynn Fonstad and The Atlas of Pern.
 * A higher priority than critical review of the book (see above) is some account of Fonstad's sources. Number one, did she meet with Christopher Tolkien? (She worked with Anne McCaffrey on the Pern atlas.) The see Acknowledgments and other front material. --P64 (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)