Wednesday, July 29, 2009

The Ring Goes Ever On: Proceedings of the Tolkien 2005 Conference, edited by Sarah Wells

This book doesn't count as one I've read. I don't own it. I've never held a copy of it. Hell, I've never seen a copy of it.

But I have read part of it, because I wrote part of it. And I'm putting it on this blog, because I think that's pretty darn cool.

These proceedings were a long time coming. The conference was in August 2005, and the proceedings weren't published until September 2008... although I didn't learn of it until recently.

I expect no one -- not even you diehard Tolkienists -- to buy this book, because frankly, it's expensive, even for a nerd. But feel free to go admire my name (not this name -- let's call it my "nom de milieu universitaire") on the author list or the contents page. (I wrote and presented the paper "Satan and The Silmarillion: John Milton's Angelic Decline in J.R.R. Tolkien's Melkor," so you can find it.)

It's definitely a special privilege to be listed with some of the Tolkien scholars on this list. So if anyone from the Tolkien Society or the Mythopoeic Society should read this, thank you once again for putting on such a great conference. And thank you for including me in the proceedings -- it's an honor I'm not likely to forget.


  1. Okay. How completely badass is it that you're not only one of the contributors for the books, but that you are in there twice? I'll tell you, it's completely badass.

    It looks like a pretty lengthy, scholarly, intellectual compendium of work!

  2. Why, thank you, Bin Bin!

    Acutally, I'm not sure why I'm in there twice. The other entry credited to me wasn't exactly my own... so either it's a typo on the website, or someone is not getting their due credit in the publication, and I really do look like a badass.

    As cool as that would be, I'm hoping it's the former.

  3. Wow Zach, way to go! . . . and "your" right, it would be really cool if was the "former" and someone was not getting their due credit in the publication. ;)

  4. Thanks, Andrew!

    And, thanks for making me question my use of former... bah! "You're" confusion shouldn't have such an "affect" on me...