For anyone worried about quality issues: I am waiting for the deluxe version of this to come out. The quality of trade books now is generally so low it puts me off getting them as books to be treasured and displayed, as well as read. I didnt get the new letters when published a year or so back for this reason, and this paid off as we have the deluxe letters coming in 2026. Of course HC have still produced one or two poor quality 'deluxes' (cough...history of the hobbit...cough).

I just finished reading my copy. I think this was an excellent addition to Tolkien's published writings. It was funny, insightful, and interesting. It sheds new light on Tolkien's existing views and also provides new information to explore in connection with his previously known works. I'm not sure anyone who actually appreciates Tolkien and actually reads it will be left "cold." Some of these reviews prove that when it comes to Tolkien, not much has changed in the literary review scene since the release of The Lord of the Rings. Richard Ovenden's historical essay provided very helpful and informative context, even if it only scratched the surface of the actual story. The environmental angle, while being an important aspect of course, seemed less interesting to me than the underlying message that the Daemon really strikes at and corrupts the human heart.

While I was initially disappointed to have already ordered a copy by the time I saw signed copies were available, I'm glad I have two copies, as the dustjacket on the signed copy I received was rather worse for wear, and my first copy came in perfect condition, so I can switch the dustjackets out. It's unfortunate that Blackwell's did not provide any better packaging, especially for a signed edition. The book ribbon and nice endpapers were good touches, and I hope that HarperCollins continues to include nice features like these on future editions (and hopefully they will begin including them on the U.S. editions).

I've just read my copy. A question for the group -- when and where was the first published reference to "The Bovadium Fragments"? So far as I've discovered, it was in Clyde S. Kilby's Tolkien and The Silmarillion, a copy of which, ordered from the Corner-Stone Book Shop, was in my hands, and read, on 13 July 1976. Humphrey Carpenter mentions it in a footnote in his biography of Tolkien, published a little over a year later.

Dale Nelson wrote:

I've just read my copy. A question for the group -- when and where was the first published reference to "The Bovadium Fragments"? So far as I've discovered, it was in Clyde S. Kilby's Tolkien and The Silmarillion, a copy of which, ordered from the Corner-Stone Book Shop, was in my hands, and read, on 13 July 1976. Humphrey Carpenter mentions it in a footnote in his biography of Tolkien, published a little over a year later.

I haven't come across any earlier mention than Kilby, I agree. Jason Fisher also noted this in a blog post recently: https://lingwe.blogspot.com/2025/05/fi ... f-bovadium-fragments.html

Thanks! I think Kilby was right to discourage Tolkien from seeking to get "Bovadium" published -- at least in a mass market book. (1) Tolkien's reputation was still in formation then and a peculiar item such as this probably wouldn't have helped. (2) It's likely that, if he were seriously engaged in seeking publication, Tolkien would tinker with the work, be preoccupied with the matter of illustrations, etc. The last thing Tolkien needed in mid-1966 was something else to distract him from the task of getting the "Silmarillion" legends into shape for book publication.

Tolkien was possibly interested in publishing it in Time and Tide, which had published the poem Imram, given that he made some ca. 1960 enquiries. The magazine published work of C.S. Lewis and Charles Williams, as well as Lewis' review of LotR. I strongly suspect Bovadium wasn't ever intended for mass-market publication. If Tolkien was soliciting Kilby's advice in 1966, then unless publication was still a possibility I don't see why Kilby would have to dissuade Tolkien from anything. I don't think Tolkien's reputation could really be said to be "still in formation" at that point, given that by then the Ace Books battle had been fought and won, and the US paperback market for LotR had exploded.

DMRoberts wrote:

I don't think Tolkien's reputation could really be said to be "still in formation" at that point, given that by then the Ace Books battle had been fought and won, and the US paperback market for LotR had exploded.

I'd be inclined to agree with Dale here, as even though there was a lot of attention on Tolkien in the wake of the Ace books affair, much of the popular press attention had not materialised (or had only just materialised) by the summer of 1966. So in that sense Tolkien's reputation was perhaps still being formed, for many (paperback sales figures would be interesting to have as well, though high sales figures doesn’t have to mean an established reputation).

For example, Henry Resnick's piece in the Saturday Evening Post, and a prominent article in Time, were both in July. Peter Beagle's piece for Holiday was in June. Esquire had a long piece in September. And the Diplomat special was in October.

I do not see any reason why Bovadium should not have been published in the 1960s. Kilby's reasons to me at least seem rather odd. Too much Latin? In 1966? I suspect Kilby was keeping, or trying to keep Tolkien on subject, that being The Silmarillion. Looking at both pieces, I can see why he might guide Tolkien away from the shorter piece, but I don't agree with his reasons. He said he

judged that it had two elements that would make it unpublishable. One was the more than liberal use of Latin, and the other the probability that a reader’s eye would focus on its playfulness rather than its serious implications.

I find both of those reasons very weak, and were to (possibly) keep Tolkien's eye on The Silmarillion. If it had been published in Time and Tide it would have made no difference to his reputation elsewhere, it would have been simply a short piece published in a monthly, just like so many other writers of the time.

When Andrew and I spoke with Richard Ovenden OBE, we touched on this matter, and Richard was of the same mind that Kilby was wrong (in our opinions of course) to suggest it not publishable, certainly for the reasons he gave.

onthetrail wrote:

the probability that a reader’s eye would focus on its playfulness rather than its serious implications.

This is the pearl-clutchingly weakest possible reason to not publish something. People might accidentally enjoy the work and miss the point behind the satire? Better not expose the story to the public and let it be sullied by interpretations.... Oh wait

I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse ‘applicability’ with ‘allegory’; but one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

Regarding Tolkien's status in 1966, I'm thinking of the college campus Tolkien enthusiasts. Maybe I'm ignorant of the timeline, but I'm definitely not thinking of the type of young people in the US at a college who might somehow accidentally pick up a copy of the conservative review paper Time and Tide and be put off re-reading LotR. I'm definitely not thinking about the literary establishment, whose opinions I can't imagine swaying the popular appreciation of Tolkien at the grass roots. But I admit I'm not massively knowledgeable about the history here and I might be assuming too much.

DMRoberts wrote:

Regarding Tolkien's status in 1966, I'm thinking of the college campus Tolkien enthusiasts. Maybe I'm ignorant of the timeline, but I'm definitely not thinking of the type of young people in the US at a college who might somehow accidentally pick up a copy of the conservative review paper Time and Tide and be put off re-reading LotR. I'm definitely not thinking about the literary establishment, whose opinions I can't imagine swaying the popular appreciation of Tolkien at the grass roots. But I admit I'm not massively knowledgeable about the history here and I might be assuming too much.

And I should have been more clear - I agree with what Dale said about Tolkien's reputation in 1966, though I don't have any view on the arguments for and against publication in 1966.

In case it's of any interest (to anyone reading this!), I can recommend the work done by Joseph Ripp on the reception of Tolkien in the US. A paper of his on the topic is available here: https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/concern/masters_papers/vx021k12g?locale=en

And a subsequent piece with a closer focus on the second half of the 1960s is here (Project Muse): https://muse.jhu.edu/article/188565/summary