In 2014 Christina Scull & Wayne Hammond had published, with permission of the Tolkien Estate, an updated release of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Adventures of Tom Bombadil & Other Verses from the Red Book (shortened henceforth to Adv. of TB - 2014). To be honest, back then I didn’t really know what to expect, but as I had already taken up study of the mysterious Bombadils with some avidity for several years prior, as an early purchaser I was quite interested in what two well-respected scholars in the community had to offer. Also in possessing the ‘original’ book release of 1962 - I was curious to see any differences and evaluate their significance.
Over the past decade, I’ve pondered quite a bit on both the content and Scull & Hammond’s actual emendations. By ‘emendations’ - I really am largely referring to the stuff they ‘added’ to the 1962 issue, rather than minor edit/correction type changes made to the original content.
Initially I was quite perturbed at what they had done. This was not just a case of some disappointment at their scholarship or discontent at the arrangement and selection of ‘new’ material. But instead, it was deeper rooted than that. A kind of seething disgust arose in me. And that which I’ve left to simmer for far too long, has unfortunately not evaporated.
‘What caused such revulsion?’, I can imagine some of you ask.
The book has generally had a very favorable response from purchasers, and those from far afield too. Book reviews on the Internet are also almost universally positive. Indeed, negative opinions are hard to find.
Snapshot of Amazon ratings 7th June 2026
‘So why is your view so out of tune with the vast majority of others?’- you may well ask. I will expand upon my misgivings in the next few posts, but firstly I want to say that there is nothing personal between me and Scull/Hammond). I have never met them, and our few communications (many years ago) have been nothing but polite and cordial. Until my purchase of Adv. of TB - 2014 I had high regard for their scholarship having acquired several of their academic works.
That opinion drastically changed.
I’m wondering whether any of you folk already know where I’m going and see matters the way I still do. Anyhow, to voice my very negative sentiments - I’m going to offer multiple reasons and thus split this thread up into several topics, where sadly I will decry and unfortunately lambast Hammond and Scull for a production which, in my opinion, is worse than just a tragedy.
These three subheadings deal with:
(a) Ethical Implications
(b) The Physical Product
(c) Erroneous Scholarship
… to be continued
The descendents don't seem to see what their (great)-grandfather found important to tell the story. 
On ethics, to make a long discussion short. I am vehemently against any alterations to any form of written, visual or sound records: how ugly, immoral, unethical or offensive it can be. They are created and coloured through the eyes in certain times and tells us what people thought and considered. What the general consensus was in a certain period of time. I call them timestamps. We should never rewrite history. 
