"Middle earth atlas" - by Fonstad

[Elenaelin]

I had a stroke of luck and discovered "The Atlas of Middle Earth" for sale in the local bookshop, but I can't remember if this is the fairly decent one or not- I heard from someone that one of the atlas' out was grossly incorrect- this one's "the atlas of middle earth", by Fonstad (?) and has been recently put out by Houghton Mifflin. Anybody know anything about it?:confused: (It's slightely pricey, and i want to make sure i wouldn't be wasting my few coins)

[Snaga]

I've got the one by Fonstad and it would be wrong to call it grossly inaccurate.

She tries to use real physical processes to inform the maps that she creates. So she uses things like tectonics, geomorphology etc, and rationalises the descriptions given by Tolkien. In some cases her results give some alterations in the maps: for example the curvature of some of the hills in Arnor is changed. In others, her conclusions may be regarded as contentious (eg Isengard as a lava extrusion).

What shines through is her love of the books, grasp of her material, and attention to detail.

Overall, her maps are of a very high standard, and are generally above reproach. But they are NOT exact reproductions of the maps in the books, and do not purport to be.

I recommend it.:)

[gate7ole]

I agree with snaga1. I recently bought the book and it is agreat companion for ME, along with Foster's Complete Guide. I really don't know if all the stuff in the book are completely accurate, but I wouldn't mind few errors within this great amount of data.
I too recommend it. You will read again Hobbit and Lotr under a new perspective consulting all these maps of the journeys and places.

[Anduril]

Agree with the snaga1 and gate7ole (period).
If I'm remembering correctly this gal has a PHD in Geography or something like that
:eek:

But the detail into the maps and lands is very very good.


Yes, it is not the same design of "Tolkien" maps, but they're ok
It'll go fine with the other books.

Regards.

[Snaga]

I didnt say it was too rationalised. I'm a nut for geological processes, so loved it.:rolleyes:

[Anduril]

Touché.
Graecum est. Sorry...
I've already edited my post...

[Elenaelin]

Thank you!:D

[Valandil]

Hmmm... if the maps we have by Christopher Tolkien are taken to be reprentations of what was found in 'The Red Book of Westmarch' - would it be reasonable to think they might be akin to maps made before modern 'geological processes' were developed? IE, world maps made in the 16th to 17th century or something? An attempt by a Hobbit to portray on a map the world in which his story takes place... for an audience primarily familiar with a smaller world within it? :)

[JPMaximilian]

Early on in ROTK, (page 24 in my version), Minas Turith is described. It states "But that shoulder, which rose to the height of the fifth wall, was hedged with great..." In the picture in Fonstad's book The Atlas of Middle Earth, the "shoulder" only goes up to the 4th wall? How can this be accounted for?

[Maeglin]

The illustrator must have made a mistake. When in doubt, always trust the words of the author, not the interpretation of the illustrator. ;)

[MOwens143B]

Most artist change their pictures so that the picture fits how they think the object should look. I honestly never noticed it, but my guess is that the artist was making the picture to fit his needs.

[scotsboyuk]

Most artist change their pictures so that the picture fits how they think the object should look. I honestly never noticed it, but my guess is that the artist was making the picture to fit his needs.
Indeed, each artist will put his or her own interpretation on something they create, sometimes not always fitting the facts, it's called 'artistic license'.

[JPMaximilian]

Most artist change their pictures so that the picture fits how they think the object should look. I honestly never noticed it, but my guess is that the artist was making the picture to fit his needs.

Do you own this book? If you do, how do you think Fonstad would explain this? "But that shoulder, which rose to the height of the fifth wall, was hedged with great..." Could Tolkien have meant that the buildings on the Fourth level where teh shoulder is, rose to the fifth wall?

Perhaps it is just a mistake, or some sort of unjustifiable license with the material. I would think that a person in this situation would want to make their diagrams and pictures as accurate as possible.

[MichaelMartinez]

Early on in ROTK, (page 24 in my version), Minas Turith is described. It states "But that shoulder, which rose to the height of the fifth wall, was hedged with great..." In the picture in Fonstad's book, the "shoulder" only goes up to the 4th wall? How can this be accounted for?
There are many inaccuracies in Fonstad's book, although it remains in my opinion the best of the cartographical references out there.

[Halasían]

The Atlas of Middle Earth by ZKaren Wynn Fonstad is a very worthy book indeed. It has helped me in many of time/distance relations in RP, and compliments Christopher Tolkien's maps and J.R.R. Tolkien's descriptions well. Yes, there are a few errors and/or oversights, but still it is quite worth the coin in my opinion.