Why is it so difficult?

[Durelin]

I see this come up a lot, but I don't think there's actually been a thread about it before. Just tell me if I'm wrong.

A lot of people say they find The Silmarillion difficult to read, or that they find it boring, or maybe just less exciting that The Lord of the Rings. (And I know probably just as many people like it more than LotR.)

What is it that makes The Silmarillion more difficult for you (or anyone) to read? What makes it (more) 'boring' (to some)?

I think, in a way, it takes someone who is at least moderately into either history or mythology (or both) to be interested in it. It might be more difficult to read than typical mythology (at least, Greek and Roman mythology, which I am most familiar with - but from what I've read of say, Hindu mythology, I think it's similar in that respect), too, if only because it is so lengthy and in-depth. Greek and Roman mythologies, and I think most others, come in the form of short, entertaining stories, because they were, in fact, written down only after years and years of being told orally, and when stories were told orally, they were meant to entertain, and obviously would have been constructed differently from something that was straight text.

Or is it just that history is boring? (This is being asked by someone who considered being a history major, so watch how you answer.) ;)

[Folwren]

Well, I always hated history in school because the history books were so blamed boring. I love history in itself...but when the history books about history are boring...

The Sil., when I first picked it up, was difficult for me because it was in that historical form type writing at first. It's not like a regular novel or book of fiction. However, when I finally picked it up and read all of it, even though it took me a long time to read, I found that it was and incredible book.

It's not like the LotR or the Hobbit, that you can just sit and read it for hours and hours at a time. It takes more thought and there's a much bigger load in it than just a tale of a few characters being told. It's the whole world's story that's being told. The characters come and go...you grow attached to one man and in ten pages, he's gone.

History is not boring. It's just...you can't read it the same as a piece of regular fiction.

-- Folwren

[mormegil]

I love the Silm but I believe some have difficutly because while it is all connected it's not a very cohesive story line. Unlike most books the start and finish is with one character or group of individuals and their quest or story. The Silm is based on the objects not the people.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

It took me a few tries to read the Silm. Each time was difficult for a different reason. First attempt: gave up due to the idea that "Oh Freaking What The? It's like reading a direct rip off of the Bible. And in the beginning there was... Gah!"

Second try I got through Eru and collapsed at the lists of people's children. I didn't want to take notes to keep track of characters. I was supposed to be reading for the fun of it.

Third try I couldn't stomach trying to keep everybody that was running around Belariand in the correct order and location.

Fourth try I managed it, but it was tough.

Now I view it as an unfinished work that vaguely annoys me to try and read as a whole. Basically, if I want to know something, I google it or ask Formendacil. It's, quite frankly, easier.

[narfforc]

The amount of times I have heard people say: I liked LotR, but couldn't get into The Silmarillion. I now tell them that once reading LotR again go straight to the back of The Sil and read Of The Rings of Power and The Third Age. Therein they meet familiar Characters and Places, and also new ones, you can almost read the chapters backwards, like researching your family history. Everyone who has read LotR should have an inkling of what The Downfall of Numenor is about. I think there are three different parts of The Sil, they are:

1. The Beginning: Nearly impossible to take in at first, an alien story.

2. The Middle: The Edges of your mind and memory are touched by the faintest beginnings of recognition.

3. The End: Hey I know that name, I've heard this somewhere before.

I really quite like the old book now.......HOOOOOOOM

[Lalwendë]

Nice idea narfforc!

The 'shock' some people get is from passing from something with such a great plot and narrative right into the Sil that's written in a very different style. Plus as narfforc says, unfamiliar characters!

A tip: photocopy the maps and family trees, use 'em as book marks and then you've a handy reference to refer to when you get confused with all these new names and places that Tolkien throws out at a rate of 100 per page (or it feels like that anyway).

I think that once The Children of Hurin is published there will be a 'bridge' between LotR and the Sil, in terms of a story that takes the unsuspecting reader across that big gap of style.

[Lhunardawen]

This coming from one who had just recently tried to re-read the Silm completely...and failed...

Too many names. At first it was easy, when you could distinguish Olwë and Elwë from Finwë and Ingwë and you were about done, but when Tolkien started expounding on almost everyone's life stories (naturally inevitable) and kept adding new names to the mix it started to get kind of confusing. Especially when those pesky Mortals joined in the fun... :p

Also, there's something about the different literary style that's not too...captivating. Granted, LotR also tends to be on the boring side, but at least the conversations were a bit closer to home. And not everyone has English as a first language.

Reading Silm, though, was an excellent warm-up to crawling through Leviticus and Numbers and 1 Chronicles. :D

[Rikae]

I started reading the Silm right after I finished LOTR, at age eight. I was torn between being awestruck by the timespan and magnitude of the events being covered, and bored because the stories simply weren't told in the detailed manner of the LOTR - the style issue you mentioned. It made it very difficult for names to become characters and places I could visualize. I have the same problem with history: I enjoy it when it depicts the details of people's experience, but when it's condensed to the point of a list of names and generalizations, it does get tedious.
As for my Silm reading project, I lost the book halfway through. It's high time I bought another and finished it - it may not seem so difficult anymore!

[Durelin]

A tip: photocopy the maps and family trees, use 'em as book marks and then you've a handy reference to refer to when you get confused with all these new names and places that Tolkien throws out at a rate of 100 per page (or it feels like that anyway).

That almost makes it sound like homework. ;)

Actually, I enjoy looking at maps and family trees... I know this book has a bunch of family trees in the back: The Complete Guide to Middle-earth (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Guide-Middle-earth-Tolkiens-World/dp/0345465296).

And then there's this awesome book for maps (which I know pio especially has suggested many times): The Atlas of Middle-earth (http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Middle-Earth-Revised-Karen-Fonstad/dp/0618126996).

The problem is, using so many books (okay, so only two, specifically) just to read one book makes one feel less like their reading it for fun, even if it is enjoyable.

In at least my copy of the Sil there is a glossary of names in the back, so at least that helps. Really, though, I find myself completely capable of reading about people even if I forget who they are, or reading about an event even though I have no real idea when it occured in relation to other events. But then when it comes to looking at the big picture, I'm at a complete loss. Is it about the big picture, though? Is there something that the Sil as a whole relates about ME, or is it just a lot of pieces of history, each relating to ME in their own ways? Is it incredibly cohesive, or can you read parts of it separately (then, of course, you're not getting the big picture, but how important is the big picture?)?

Having too many names is a common complaint for not only the Sil but other fantasy books. One fantasy series in particular that I hear people complaining about a lot in the way is The Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan, because there are so many different characters...

[Holbytlass]

Why is it so difficult?
It's laziness on my part. Ironically I like history-the whys and hows. But I've been out of school awhile and hate when I have to research or take notes on anything unless I really, really want to.

I read Silm once-and it was a struggle. I read it for entertainment value and because of its choppiness it didn't hold my attention. Don't get me wrong, I came through with a better understanding of the background to LOTR and there were a few good stories within it but to recommend it or read it through again, no thank you!

[Boromir88]

I was kind of like Fea and morm combined, and this is probably why I only read the Sil completely through once.

It's really a story I didn't enjoy, or not in the way that I enjoy Lord of the Ring. I think this is where the problem occurs of reading the Sil.

As morm says it feels incohesive. Yes, there's this timeline of events, but it's not really one set storyline like there is in LOTR. We also have to remember the manner in which The Sil was put together. As CT talks about, doing so was a huge and difficult task, as trying to fit together the best and most cohesive story as was possible. The Sil was more or less a collection of stories that took place over a long period of time. He wanted to put together the Sil into a rough timeline creating a clear story. But, it doesn't work to the same effect LOTR did, because it's a collection of mini stories.

I didn't get the same feel as I do when reading LOTR. LOTR there is a lot of progression as this is a story spanning a little over a year about Frodo's journey with the Ring and Aragorn's journey of becoming a King. Now there is some background and historical information, but it felt much more like a story and it was put together. This was easy to do, and to show developement and progress of the characters, because it focused around one story in a rather small amount of time.

With The Silmarillion, it is a history over several thousand years, so it feels choppy, I didn't feel as connected to the characters. I think Folwren referring to it as a history book fits in quite right. As The Sil is a group of stories spanning over a vast period of time...to do to The Sil what Tolkien did to LOTR would be virtually impossible.

Also as Fea put it, it's just so many facts and information to digest. To digest all that info I mean my mind would just simply explode. So, I treat The Sil more as something to refer to, if I'm looking for an argument to discuss/debate, rather than a story to sit down and read like LOTR.

[Lalwendë]

That almost makes it sound like homework.

That's because it is.....Tolkien was not a teacher for nothing. He knew exactly how to keep us on his Straight Path.... :eek:

Seriously though. There's no need to stress out over the Sil, as it does not have to be read as a 'novel', in fact its often better read in chunks or sections, even just in chapters, as Boromir88 and narfforc have suggested. Just select tales you like and read those to begin with, if that's something you're more comfortable with. Don't worry too much about all the names and places, just enjoy each story, as each one has its own narrative and structure, and each one is different.

[MatthewM]

Well, I haven't read the Silmarillion yet, but my friend who did isn't a fan. Like everyone else said, he thought it was 'alright'. I'll get around to reading it one day and judging for myself.

[Lalwendë]

Well, I haven't read the Silmarillion yet, but my friend who did isn't a fan. Like everyone else said, he thought it was 'alright'. I'll get around to reading it one day and judging for myself.

Give it a go, it's worth it!

My mate thinks its better than LotR, and I'm sure there are people here who would agree.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

My mate thinks its better than LotR, and I'm sure there are people here who would agree.A lot of it's just formatting. It's not so much the lack of continuity or the info lists in the Silm that are scary hard. It's that it's all structured in such a way as that you look for continuity in vain. It would be an easier read, I think, if seperated into sections or "short stories" instead of chapters.

At the same time, the difficulty of the read insists upon a certain level of commitment. You finish it feeling - So what if you don't remember any of the names? - a certain level of pride and accomplishment.

[mormegil]

Give it a go, it's worth it!

My mate thinks its better than LotR, and I'm sure there are people here who would agree.

Aye. I tend to like it better but that does waiver from time to time. Overall I like some of the stories in The Silm better than LotR...can you imagine that one of those is the story of Turin? :rolleyes: ;)

[Macalaure]

My mate thinks its better than LotR, and I'm sure there are people here who would agree.Neither better nor worse. They're just too different to be compared.

I read the Sil for the first time a few years ago. The beginning was horrifying. The first few chapters incredibly dragged. Sure, you get to know about Elbereth and the dwarves and it's all quite interesting, but it's really painful to read through it. And then comes the ultimate character overkill in "Of Eldamar". I guess the only way to keep on reading at this point is to completely forget about all the names: each of them will be introduced again, in a proper way and mostly seperate.
Things got more interesting when I reached the Rebellion of the Noldor. Now I finally had a plot to follow and actually started wondering what might happen next and my reading sped up. By the time I reached the 'classic' hero stories of Beren and Lúthien and Túrin I was into it. Every evening I read one chapter and even though the chapters are only loosely connected, I still felt the story flow.

When I was through at last I immediately read it again, and finally the early chapters made sense and it became a whole. narfforc's suggestion to read from end to beginning might really be worth a shot.

To me, The Silmarillion is much more of a 'fantasy story' than The Lord of the Rings. The LotR presents you a fantastic story that you can just read from beginning to end without interruptions. The Sil clearly demands a little more from its reader. You actually have to utilise your own imagination and fantasy to make it come to life. Imagine the Sil was written with as much detail as the LotR. It'd be of the length of the whole HoMe, just plain story, no notes, no repetition. But the Sil doesn't present this to the reader, the reader has to do it itself.
Well, this is the way I see the Silmarillion. I hope this does not sound as unpleasurable as homework. It certainly wasn't (and is, I'm still 'writing' that story in my mind) for me.

[Durelin]

I think it's actually quite fair to say that it can seem like homework, because so many of us have been conditioned into feeling like "this is work, and this isn't." These days (gah, I used the phrase! First, it is an abused phrase. Second, I am only 17 years old and I know quite well that I am not justified in saying it. But I'm using it anyway! Just try and stop me!) anything that really stimulates the mind isn't largely considered enjoyable. When I tell people (normally around my age) that I enjoy very much simply reading and writing, they look at me like I'm nuts. This is how many people look at it, but certainly not all (otherwise I really wouldn't get along with anyone). There is plenty of example of people (around my age) who don't look at it like that here on the 'Downs...


To me, The Silmarillion is much more of a 'fantasy story' than The Lord of the Rings.

That's really interesting, because I think the opposite. I feel like LotR is a fantasy story, while the Sil is more like a myth. But I find defining those to be difficult.

And personally, I think LotR takes quite a lot of imagination and thought to really realize and visualize it. I almost think that, though the characters and the plot itself is easier to follow (because it's one overall plot and one overall set of characters) in LotR than in the Sil, keeping up with the physical descriptions can be tiring. A strong ability in spatial reasoning is not something I possess, and I found it difficult to imagine settings when Tolkien described them, and he spent quite a bit describing them, I think.

As for writing the story yourself, I think we do that all the time in the RP forums. :D

[Folwren]

Perhaps I gave the wrong impression. Yes, it is like a History book, but I never considered like some bit of homework.

Well, I haven't read the Silmarillion yet, but my friend who did isn't a fan. Like everyone else said, he thought it was 'alright'. I'll get around to reading it one day and judging for myself.

Do read it. It is excellent. It took me a long time (and two tries) to read it, but when I finally finished it, I was more than happy I'd read it.

Some of my favorite books takes a long time to read and long time to get into. For instance, Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens is an incredible book and I love it, but I've only read it once, because it is difficult to get into. Same as the Sil. That book is awesome, really it is, it's just...harder. And yet, it seems, many, many times in life, the harder something is to accomplish, the greater the outcome. :)

-- Folwren

[Lalwendë]

I think a lot of the problems people have with the Sil is that Tolkien wrote it in the style of genuine Mythology. Pick up a copy of the Mabinogion and you will experience the same style, slightly distant and 'high', a sense that the text was not written in the same century which produced The Hobbit. This is a huge shock following close on the heels of one of the greatest and most readable narratives of all time, LotR.

But once you get over the shock, there are some beautiful and terrifying stories to be found inside. This is Tolkien's Dark Work, and has some amazing ideas within. Spider beings which devour Light. Incest. Vampires. Werewolves. Revenge. Some of the stories bring us things which we might not have expected to find in Tolkien, such as Byronic figures; there's one in Eol, who has always appealed to me as a dark male figure, living alone in the woods, enchanting a beautiful woman (bit like Mr Rochester at the end of Jane Eyre, possibly?). Brrr.

So yes, if struggling, approach it in another way. Begin at the end. Or with the tale that most interests you.

[Lhunardawen]

So yes, if struggling, approach it in another way. Begin at the end. Or with the tale that most interests you.
Yes, that actually works. Sometimes when I jump to specific tales on certain characters just because I want to remember what happened, I couldn't stop reading more; it's always, "Oh yeah, then what happens after this again?"

Sometimes even just going through the index can prompt one to read the book again!

[Ghazi]

I don't like it as much. As mentioned by others earlier in this thread, there are too many small stories. Also, it is a depressing read. It becomes clear very early on that the good guys are always going to screw up, at every opportunity, and let the bad guys win. Even when the victory seems final, it never is, but I guess that's just a dose of reality.

[Brinniel]

I first bought my copy of The Silmarillion in June 2002. I think it was a result of joining the Barrow Downs. Before joining, I hadn't really even heard of the book, but it was so talked about on the Downs. I felt absolutely clueless in some discussions and decided it was necessary to read it. Besides, I was curious. I read the first chapter and admit I found it incredibly boring. I didn't attempt to continue and instead got myself distracted by another fantasy series I still enjoy. I didn't pick up The Silmarillion again until the beginning of 2003- I decided that it was time I finally read the darned thing.

Getting through The Silmarillion was tough- it took months to finish it. Perhaps my difficulty with it was partially due to my age, after all I was only fourteen at the time. Like others who have posted on this thread, I found the book complex, full of too many characters and stories. Often, I felt like I was reading a history textbook, sometimes skimming through the most difficult parts. But as soon I was ready to give up on The Silmarillion, I would find a chapter that intrigued me. Such examples were the stories of Turin, and Beren and Luthien. Such chapters were what drove me to the end. And though I finished The Silmarillion still puzzled by much of its content, ultimately I was glad I read it. While some of the book was confusing, I still learned a lot and understood Middle-earth in ways I hadn't before.

Almost four years later, and I'm thinking it's about time I re-read The Silmarillion. After all, over the years I've seemed to forgotten much of its content. Even the story of Turin has grown cloudy for me. :eek: Besides I found through my experiences of re-reading LotR, that reading a book a second time can truly help one to understand it better. After re-reading The Silmarillion, perhaps I'll even start on HoME. I've owned the first book for years, yet it has remained untouched, save for when I took it with me to college. (Then my perfectly conditioned book became partially ruined from water damage due to the poor handling of my checked luggage- that happened three months ago and I'm still bitter about it. Anyways, that experience is a long story and I won't get into it....)

[Boromir_bg]

Firstly,history is never boring.At least I think so.
Secondly,I think that Sil is a little bit "dry",because it does not contain so much action,but merely facts.I think that those who read it just have to have the proper expectations.

[Amras Oronar]

I didn't quit expierience it as boring, perhaps only the beginning about the creattion, it was sort of difficult to understand and I personally didn't find it quit intresting. Also it is af course not really a story, it's more a history reccord. It doesn't have any main character's or anything. Af course the Hobbit and LoTR are real story's perhaps some people are preparing for that when they start reading the Silmarillion? I've always been told it was very very boring when I starded reading it, so it was much better then I expected :D

Also I know people who found it so sophisticated that they kept notes to remember who everybody was, it is quit hard to keep up with everything because there are so many people featured in it. Personally I havae to admit that sometimes I didn't understand it because I forgot who exactly the person who was featured in that chapter actually was...

But af course after a while you get to learn everybody and you understand everything better, but I did find it very hard to keep up how all people were related together... I think for instance that from the biggest part of the sons of Feänor I only found out they were sons of Feänor like half way through the book, when the eldest of Feänors sons died or and it said that the elf was now the eldest son of Feänor....

Though after reading it all I only found the beginning of how all was creatted confusion and perhaps a little boring...

[ArathorofBarahir]

I loved reading the Silmarillion. I have always been a history buff and reading the history of Tolkien's world was rather enjoyable for me.

[Elmo]

Come on the Silmarillion is brilliant - the image of Fingon's speech at the Battle of Unnumbered Tears 'Night is Over' stirs my heart, so does Hurin's stand against the trolls 'Day Will Come Again!' , the Shakespearien tragedy of Turin, the beautiful love story of Luthien and Beren 'Tinuviel, Tinuviel', Earendil's final voyage... I've found a book so full packed full of brilliance.
The only fault is I'd wish CT had added more detail to the actual Silmarillion that was in the Unfinished Tales like the tale of Tuor and I found his description of hurin's defiance of Melkor magic!

[The Sixth Wizard]

I first read the Sil a while ago, but only after reading about the various gods and stories elsewhere, like in the Encyclopaedia of Arda. This probably gave me some background to decipher the more complex texts and I had it read in a fortnight or maybe less. I was 13 at the time.

Much of it is beautiful, the Last Stand of Dor-Lomin stirs my heart. Hurin is my favourite character, over Turin and Fingolfin. I imagine vividly Earendil returning with a star upon his brow, can see the fire in Feanor's eye as he pursues Gothmog and Morgoth's forces. I like how Men are not considered pure, but easily tempted, and free to choose their own path. I also like how it isn't the goodies who get away with it, it's not predictable like most stories. One of my favourite things about it is that Aragorn's son (can't remember his name) is so far down the line he has a strain of Maiar, Teleri, Noldor, Vanyar and Dunedain (check it you'll see). I positively like the Silmarillion. It probably is a difficult book for most teenagers but I found it very intriguing.

Bye!

[Kath]

Pick up a copy of the Mabinogion and you will experience the same style, slightly distant and 'high', a sense that the text was not written in the same century which produced The Hobbit.
That's exactly right, and reading that book was the only way I got through the Silmarillion. I went from The Hobbit to LotR and from there I tried to go straight onto the Sil but got bogged down by the 347 names beginning with F somewhere in the middle. I moved on to Arthur and those stories and finally returned to the Sil many years later. It was still a struggle to get through it and it certainly warrants a re-read as I remember little of it, but many of the stories were excellent and I personally greatly enjoyed the beginning.

[Lalwendë]

I was looking at Waterstone's in-shop magazine yesterday (didn't buy it because it's £1.99 and I'm tight) and there was a tiny paragraph about The Children of Hurin - it said something about "anyone who's ever struggled with The Silmarillion...."

Way to go Waterstone's! Not. I think that might put a few prospective buyers off Children... and judging by the amount of Harry Potter advertising all over the shop it looks like there will be no Children Of Hurin release date midnight opening.... :(

[Durelin]

I do think we're rather convinced of what should be "entertaining" and what shouldn't be, as well as what should be difficult...and if it isn't difficult, then you're a loser nerd with no friends. :rolleyes:

And I see people have been assuming that I'm the one complaining - I'm not; I was just asking why others find it difficult, because I hear a lot about it being "work" for people. Personally, I have only not read the Silmarillion yet (though I've read pieces) because I have not found the time, sadly. Too many books to read, too little time...perhaps that's the real difficulty.

[The Sixth Wizard]

It comes down to what I heard on a different thread, there's those who like the LOTR story and those who like the LOTR world. If you like the story but not the millions of place-names and dates, don't read the Silmarillion. If you're over the story (like me) but still want to learn about the world, by all means read it.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

Interesting question.

It did take me a couple tries to get through the Sil. I think it is the style, mainly, that makes it a little harder than LOTR. It's written in a more archaic style, which can make it a little less accessable.

My initial response was like Fea's: This reads like the Bible. I didn't make it through that time.

The second time I picked it up, I skimmed over the first part about the creation, which I think was a good move to make. It gets less Bible-ish later on, or perhaps I just became accustomed to the style quicker. I discovered that I really enjoyed the story of Turin...but the rest had taken too long to read, and there was still quite a ways to go. And I gave it up again.

The third time I started Sil, I read the thing from start to finish (almost). Something just clicked with me, and I felt myself falling into Middle-earth again. The last chapter or two remain unread, not because I gave up, but because I was struck with the realization that this would be the last new Tolkien I would ever read. So I stopped. I wanted to save it. For what or until when, I don't know...but I didn't want to read it. Because after that, it would be all over, and I didn't want it to end.

I still haven't read those last pages. Now, there is a "new" book coming, so I think that over spring break, I'll pick Sil up again, start from the beginning, and read all the way to the end.

I think that a lot of what's so difficult about Silmarillion is that it is different from Lord of the Rings. LOTR reads cohesively. It is highly descriptive, and doesn't get bogged down in long lists of who is related to whom. Silmarillion is a more episodic story, spread out over a much wider range of time. Everything connects, but you could pick it up, open it to a chapter of your choice, and start there, and probably be no more lost than you would be if you started at the beginning.

I think another problem could be that it's something like the issues people have with Shakespeare: It sounds different! It's too hard! I can't read this!...when really, it's pretty much the same language as our own, and it's only really difficult because everyone says it is--just the power of suggestion. The style may take a little longer to figure out at first, but once you get into the rhythm of it, it flies right by.

I think it's hard, also, to find the chunk of time required to read the Silmarillion. It took me longer to read than LOTR, partly because increased demands of school meant that I couldn't just curl up with a blanket and the book and spend my days lying on the couch and reading...and partly because it took me some time to get accustomed to the style differences. If you can find the appropriate window of time to dedicate to the effort, it's worth the read.

[mhagain]

Didn't find it particularly "difficult" at all. I'd actually read it before reading LoTR, over 20 years ago, and have since re-read it many more times than LoTR. It's just a matter of letting go of your preconceptions of novelistic convention, and being prepared to go with the flow rather get too hung up on who's doing what at any particular moment.

Of course, once the Silmarillion bug bites, it bites for good. ;):D

[Rhod the Red]

It's written from a third person perspective and much denser style writing than TLOTR, and the story line is not as interesting as in the Rings .

[mhagain]

I'd beg to disagree, but it's just a difference of opinion.

The storyline has far more potential to be interesting, but it's told in a more detached manner. It's obvious that if one got up close enough to see the whites of their eyes, Beren & Luthien (to pick an example) could very easily make a book as long as LoTR, and with as much incident and excitement in it.

[Groin Redbeard]

They're both first rate books. But I think the Silmarillion is more of a text book of history and Lord of the Rings/Hobbit are stories.

I think one of the reasons that it is so confusing is because it has Belierand in it, and for someone who has just read the Lord of the Rings that can be very confusing.

I still remember that I spent the first four chapters trying to find out what Belierand was.

[TheOrcWithNoName]

The amount of times I have heard people say: I liked LotR, but couldn't get into The Silmarillion. I now tell them that once reading LotR again go straight to the back of The Sil and read Of The Rings of Power and The Third Age. Therein they meet familiar Characters and Places, and also new ones, you can almost read the chapters backwards, like researching your family history. Everyone who has read LotR should have an inkling of what The Downfall of Numenor is about. I think there are three different parts of The Sil, they are:

1. The Beginning: Nearly impossible to take in at first, an alien story.

2. The Middle: The Edges of your mind and memory are touched by the faintest beginnings of recognition.

3. The End: Hey I know that name, I've heard this somewhere before.

I really quite like the old book now.......HOOOOOOOM



My first attempt on The Silm (sounds' like I'm trying to conquer Everest here, and in some respects the analogy is true), was about 30 years ago when I was a teenager with lots of spare time on my hands.

I had just completed & enjoyed both The Hobbit & Lord Of The Rings, so felt in the mood to carry on with Tolkien's adventure and purchase The Silm, rather naively expecting it to be a standard novel either following on from LOTR or some kind of backfil between the two tomes. How very very wrong I was!

I think by about page 30 I just gave up. Clearly this was no story in the typical or logical sense, but just a collection of random ideas, sketches & disorganised ramblings, was my initial critique of the book. And I believe it sat on my bookshelf gathering dust for another 15 years or so before I attempted the same task again.

But even second time around I found it to be quite inaccessible, confusing and generally quite frustrating with even trying to complete a couple of pages! So again I gave up the ghost and moved on.

I consider myself to be of average intelligence and enjoy books of all kinds; I even completed Stephen Hawkins' "A Brief History Of Time" twice and loved every moment. However, The Silm, is just out there on its own as a book I have failed to complete. But then after reading some of the opinions on here, I guess my expectations were set too high and that perhaps this book should not be read in the usual front2back way; but is a book to be dipped in back & forth. It is not a story in the true sense just a collection of historical events portrayed in various time lines and from different points of view.

I feel encouraged to read LOTR again very soon, but on completion I will then continue with The Silm, but this time taking the advice of Narfforc and read the chapters concerning The Third Age and The Rings of Power to begin with, and then more or less read the book backwards, which will hopefully accommplish my ambition if conquering The Silmarillion once and for all.

[skip spence]

To me, The Silmarillion is much more of a 'fantasy story' than The Lord of the Rings. The LotR presents you a fantastic story that you can just read from beginning to end without interruptions. The Sil clearly demands a little more from its reader. You actually have to utilise your own imagination and fantasy to make it come to life. Imagine the Sil was written with as much detail as the LotR. It'd be of the length of the whole HoMe, just plain story, no notes, no repetition. But the Sil doesn't present this to the reader, the reader has to do it itself.


A very good point here. To be read with enjoyment the Silmarillion absolutely demands that you utilize your imagination. Sit down in a comfortable chair, smoke a pipe for relaxation, and read slowly, very slowly. Ask yourself, how was it like on the plains of Ard-Galen on that cold winter night right before the Battle Of The Sudden Flame? What went through Húrin's mind when he faced the bare walls of the Crissaegrim and realized there was no return to Gondolin or the high hopes of his youth. Try to imagine how it was like when Haleth and her people heard the horns of Caranthir just as the Orics broke though their last line of defence. Three lines in this book may contain events and character descriptions that would take up tree pages or more in LotR, and if you just rush on trying to finish the book, those events and characters are lost. In order to really enjoy all the fantastic storielines, you have read between the lines and capture them yourself.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I definitely like LotR, Hobbit and the minor works more than the Sil, however I've found it to be helpful to read it with a specific interest in mind. I've recently gone through (= skimmed) almost all of Tolkien's works to find all references to music, and that has shown me interesting aspects. Suddenly there are connections between characters that I didn't see before.

So, if you are not the type of reader to take skip's advice and read it slowly, perhaps you will be able to get through if you read quickly and look for references to your favourite topic - dragons, swords, jewels, parent-children relationships, whatever. At any rate, use a copy in which you can underline interesting passages/quotes, so that you can find them when going back to the book.

[Thinlómien]

I never found the Silmarillion difficult, probably because I love history and old legends which it resembles, and also because it was read aloud to me already when I was less than 10 years old, so I learned all the names and places as effortlessly as kids learn new things.

I still have a piece of advice to offer and it goes along the same lines as what other people have said. It's easiest to start with the whole stories: Beren and Lúthien, Túrin Turambar (although I recommend reading Children of Húrin instead, it's much more comprehensive) and the Gondolin chapters (16 and 23). Of course they're all entwined with the general history so you may get confused if you haven't read the rest, but then you should ignore the general pattern and concentrate on the main characters, the actual story. Probably you will grow interested in the rest while you're reading the stories, so then it may feel more rewarding to read the whole book.

[Morthoron]

I loved reading the Silmarillion. Of course, I read it when it first was published, but years after devouring The Hobbit and LotR. There was so much to learn, and so many questions that were answered (and so many others that arose!). The creation stories, particularly the Ainulindalë, were breathtaking, and offered an intriguing and even more beautiful rendering of how the Universe came into being than in the static plopping of cows onto pastures on the 5th day as one found in the Christian Bible. There was music in the voices of the Ainur and music in the rhythmic beat of Tolkien's prose. As a teenager who reveled in Norse and Greek mythology and medieval history, it was an astounding find, akin to real-world mythos, but even more special because it was attached to endearing books. It completed a circle....or a ring, if you prefer.

[Kent2010]

I haven't read the Silmarillion, and maybe I should, but the reason I haven't is because I hear it is a lot different than the Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit. It is different, in the way that it suits different people, and that it doesn't read as a story like LOTR or The Hobbit.

At least from what I have heard. My dad wanted me to read the books before going to watch the movies, I didn't get finished with them before going to see the movies, but after I did finish reading LOTR I was amazed at the story. I wanted to read The Hobbit next, and my dad dug out his book and let me read it.

Then when I was at B&N, I saw another Tolkien book...The Silmarillion, I wanted to get it, but was convinced not to, because my dad said that besides LOTR and The Hobbit Tolkien's other stuff wasn't that good. He didn't like it because it wasn't the same and there were lots of "dry spots" that were difficult to get through. So, I never got it.

That shouldn't stop me now, but it does, basically because I have enough dry (and much more expensive) textbooks that for some reason is 'necessary' to spend money on, and The Silmarillion isn't the top of priority to figure out whether I like it or not.

[Morthoron]

I haven't read the Silmarillion, and maybe I should, but the reason I haven't is because I hear it is a lot different than the Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit.

Perhaps you should try, as it will give you a different perspective on Middle-earth and Tolkien as a writer. The Sil is more akin to his translations (Gawaine, Beowulf, Sigurd, etc.) in that it evokes an arcane and ancient feeling that LotR only hints at. It may also aid you in discussions on this and other Tolkien fora.

[TheOrcWithNoName]

Well following on from my earlier post today I've now made a start on LOTR books for the first time in 7 or 8 years. And I've also dusted down my copy of The Sil because I am now quite looking forward to reading it but this time from a different less logical perspective.

I just hope this new found enthusiasm lasts by the time I have completed ROTK in a couple of weeks. Although I suppose there's nothing wrong with dipping into the book while still reading LOTR. Might even help a little

[Mnemosyne]

Although I suppose there's nothing wrong with dipping into the book while still reading LOTR. Might even help a little

It really does--I did not "get" nearly as much of LotR as I could have until after I'd successfully slogged through the Silm once. Aside from obvious allusions (maybe you could read the bit on Earendil after Bilbo's presented his poem?) there are also some lovely parallels--look up Fingon's rescue of Maedhros when you're at "The Tower of Cirith Ungol."

[Galadriel]

For me it was because I couldn't quite relate to the characters well enough. There wasn't enough dialogue to make the characters seem 'human' enough. Add that to the slightly dry and less descriptive manner in which it is written, and you've got your answer from me.

[Galadriel55]

I've read the Sil after LOTR, and although I was familiar with some of the names, by far not most of them. At first, I was really confused about which Valar is which. Then - all the names of Finwe's children and grandchildren (except for Feanor and Galadriel, who I know fro LOTR). To me, Finwe, Fingolfin, Finrod, and Fingon were like one person. Later on I've sorted it out, though. The next confusion was about the family trees. It took me a while to understand all the relationships in the 3 Houses of Edain. Right now, I find all this inforation pretty much straightfoward.
I think that you can only truly start understanding the Sil once you've got the basics, which will not happen right away. People who put the book down because it's too complex should try one more time, maybe.

[findorfin]

Weirdly I've never read the Silmarillion. However, I listened to the Audio version countless times (thank you Martin Shaw) in my teens. I've just dug the tapes back out and have decided to purchase the CD version.

In this format I never had a problem with the story and loved the 'historicity' of it. I also loved the family trees (especially the House of Finwe) and created my own copies of them.

I'm now wondering if, like the old greek myths which would have been read/spoken to you, listening to the Silmarillion made a big impact. I certainly don't have an urge to read it, but now I've found them again, they're going straight on my Blackberry so I can listen to them.

[Durelin]

And I still have not read the Sil. Oh dear.

I've read a lot more myth, epic, saga, and historical narrative in the past few years and think I would appreciate Tolkien's style (and influences) even more.

I am also so many years distant of LotR that it might feel like I'm entering an entirely new world again.

[Mister Underhill]

The Sil is challenging, no question, especially diving right in with the Ainulindalë and the Valaquenta, which can be like cracking open a King James Bible from an alternate dimension while you're trying to kick back on the beach on summer vacation. I don't know if I would have ever gotten through it if it wasn't for wanting to be able to keep up on these here Downs. I'm glad I did, though the Sil will never be the sort of comfort book that LotR is for me. My experience reminded me of reading Moby Dick -- the work you put in slogging through the first third or so pays off in spades on the back end, and once you get comfortable and conversant in the world of the First Age, you can go back and appreciate some of the poetry in the earlier chapters.

Some good advice has been given in this thread. I'll echo the things that ring true for me:

Have easy access to maps and family trees. For me, having a couple of extra bookmarks so that I could easily flip to the resource I needed was enough.
Have a nice chunk of time to devote to it. The Sil is not the type of book to read in small sips, ten pages before bedtime or something.
Hang in there at least until you get into the first few chapters of the Quenta proper. If you can get to chapters that have actual scenes and exchanges of dialogue and a narrative thread, you can keep your head above water.I'd add, don't approach it as a duty. If you love Middle-earth, you probably owe it to yourself to give the Sil a shot, but it doesn't make you a bad Tolkien fan if you never warm up to it.

[Galadriel55]

I'd add, don't approach it as a duty. If you love Middle-earth, you probably owe it to yourself to give the Sil a shot, but it doesn't make you a bad Tolkien fan if you never warm up to it.

So true! You can't understand The Sil if you don't love the world of LOTR (not only ME, I mean the whole world).
I think it helps to reread The Sil after you finish it, because many things could be unclear or confusing the first time.

[Puddleglum]

So true! You can't understand The Sil if you don't love the world of LOTR (not only ME, I mean the whole world).
Absolutely. And I think appreciation of Sil is also impacted by the ways in which LOTR touched you.

To use my experience as an example of what I mean... I fell in love with not just the story, but with the rich depth behind and surrounding that story. Tolkien was constantly throwing in tidbits that hinted at a full history and life underlying, surrounding, upholding, and informing the world we were experiencing with Bilbo, Frodo and his friends. For example:

Elrond tells Bilbo & co. that the sword Gandalf took from the trolls had been owned by the King of Gondolin.
Gimli, in his chant about Kazad-dum refers to "Elder days before the fall of mighty kings in Nargothrond and Gondolin that now beyond the western seas have passed away".
Faramir recounts Gandalf talking about "my youth in the west that is forgotten".
Aragorn sings about Beren and Luthien.
Bilbo sings about Earendel (knowing he is Elrond's father).

The Appendicies were rich fare for one eager and yearning to learn more and dig deeper into that history - but far too short for my taste.

Publication of Silmarillion was, for me, like opening the BonAdventure penthouse restaurant to one previously limited to snacking on hour-dourves in the lobby. Now I could actually *VISIT* that old world, rather than just hear about it.

[Galadriel55]

For me, I read the Sil because it has the same phylosophy*. It is very different, but the principles remain the same. Of course, I also wanted to find more about Earendil and all these other guys mentioned in LOTR, but its more the world that I wanted to know about than the history. But both are interesting and rich.

*Philosophy isn't the right word here. Its more like the play of values and emotions...

[Galadriel]

Didn't find it particularly "difficult" at all. I'd actually read it before reading LoTR, over 20 years ago, and have since re-read it many more times than LoTR. It's just a matter of letting go of your preconceptions of novelistic convention, and being prepared to go with the flow rather get too hung up on who's doing what at any particular moment.

Of course, once the Silmarillion bug bites, it bites for good. ;):D


That ought to be the proper way. Read Sil first, I mean. But many people find it awfully dry if they don't like Tolkien (aka LotR and The Hobbit).

[Galadriel]

For me, I read the Sil because it has the same phylosophy*. It is very different, but the principles remain the same. Of course, I also wanted to find more about Earendil and all these other guys mentioned in LOTR, but its more the world that I wanted to know about than the history. But both are interesting and rich.

*Philosophy isn't the right word here. Its more like the play of values and emotions...

I suppose I wanted to know about the world as much as the history. Though Children of Húrin will remain the best 'history' bit for me :)

[Galadriel55]

Narn is the best emotional part for me. :)

[Galadriel]

Narn is the best emotional part for me. :)

Yes, that too :) I felt the elves were more 'human' in CoH. We never had such a close view of elves, except in LotR with Legolas and Galadriel.

[Galadriel55]

It's not really that (but that too, yes). Its just that COH is so... powerful. It just makes me go WOW, like absolutely WOW. I don't have the right word for such a feeling. The whole Sil is WOW, but it's more concentrated in COH. Maybe cause it's a separate book that can go into more details, but I think its really what happens in the Narn.

[Bom Tombadillo]

I actually found it easier to read than LotR. Especially since, whenever I skimmed the Sil, I *made* myself go back and start reading again from the point where I started skimming. This meant that it took a couple of days to get started on the Narn I Hin Hurin. :D

But mostly it was the vast number of interesting little tidbits that kept me reading - I was able to go "Hey, so THAT's where that came from!" again and again. I truly believe that Tolkien gets better and better the more of him you read, because of the completeness of the world he subcreates.

[Galadriel]

It's not really that (but that too, yes). Its just that COH is so... powerful. It just makes me go WOW, like absolutely WOW. I don't have the right word for such a feeling. The whole Sil is WOW, but it's more concentrated in COH. Maybe cause it's a separate book that can go into more details, but I think its really what happens in the Narn.

Yes, the detail is one thing I really liked. I wish he could have given us such a close up on Valinor. It's one place that's always intrigued me.

[Bêthberry]

Good ideas and suggestions from everyone here!

One point which I don't think has been mentioned is the postumous nature of the book. The Silmarillion never existed as a single, comprehensive text in The Professor's lifetime. What we have is a selected edition from his literary executor, his son, Christopher, with help from Guy Kay.

Now before anyone jumps up to say this is another razz at the son, let me quote a bit from the Foreward.


It became clear to me that to attempt to present, within the covers of a single book, the diversity of the materials--to show The Silmarillion as in truth a continuing and evolving creation extending over more than half a century--would in fact lead only to confusion and the submerging of what is essential. I set myself therefore to work out a single text, selecting and arranging in such a way as seemed to me to produce the most coherent and internally self-consistent narrative. . . . A complete consistency . . . is not to be looked for, and could only be achieved, if at all, at heavy and needless cost.

The text that we have as The Silm is a highly edited text, and it is put together by a scholar whose intent was to provide some kind of comprehensive format of a very long process. While CT followed his father's intent, it is very possible that that scholarly overview was very different from how a creative writer would have combined the disparate and changing stories. JRRT wrote according to his notions and ideas of what makes a good story. CT edited with notions of how to make a consistent redaction. Those two aims produce very different styles.

This is in addition to the conception of the materials which JRRT had: that The Silm is


a compilation, a compendious narrative, made long afterwards from sources of great diversity ... that had survived in agelong traditon, and this conception has indeed its parallel in the actual history of the book.

So in conception The Silm differs from LotR, as well as in the format in which we have it. CT was not attempting, as his father was, to write a good story, but to provide a text consistent with scholarly procedures and aims, as was his responsiblity as Literary Executor.

For years I've used The Silm as a sort of encyclopedia, delving in at various stories and stages where I needed or wanted some information about those old sources. I've come to appreciate Tolkien's Legendarium much more from reading, for instance, BoLT, so I guess I read The Silm as an historical document itself rather than as a ripping good yarn. I like to think I am reading it consistently with JRRT's idea of ancient sources.

[Galadriel55]

I haven't yet read BOLT - or any HOME books, for that matter - and I enjoy reading The Sil very much. I think that the ajor reason for it being a bit difficult at first is that it's trying to fit a lot of material into a small space (like it says in the quote that Bethberry provided). After rereading it, though, it became very clear for me, and VERY enjoyable. :)

[blantyr]

The text that we have as The Silm is a highly edited text, and it is put together by a scholar whose intent was to provide some kind of comprehensive format of a very long process. While CT followed his father's intent, it is very possible that that scholarly overview was very different from how a creative writer would have combined the disparate and changing stories. JRRT wrote according to his notions and ideas of what makes a good story. CT edited with notions of how to make a consistent redaction. Those two aims produce very different styles.

This almost makes me wonder if a 'good parts' version of the Silmarillion ought to be written. Spider Robinson wrote a posthumous Heinlein novel, Variable Star, (http://www.amazon.com/Variable-Star-Robert-Heinlein/dp/076531312X) based on Heinlein's outline and notes from 1955. We have a scholarly presentation version of Silmarillion. Is there a modern writer anyone would trust to turn it into fiction?

[Morthoron]

This almost makes me wonder if a 'good parts' version of the Silmarillion ought to be written.

A Silmarillion for Simpletons? No thanks.

[Anguirel]

I note with concern, astonishment and admiration, Durelin, that you wrote an excellent Thuringwethil in Treachery of Men without having read her story!

[Durelin]

Aw, thanks....actually I *did* read (some of?) her parts. :p Including her run-in with Luthien at one point a looong time ago...(er, right?)

And I did research for your RP, Ang! :D

[Nerwen]

This almost makes me wonder if a 'good parts' version of the Silmarillion ought to be written. Spider Robinson wrote a posthumous Heinlein novel, Variable Star, (http://www.amazon.com/Variable-Star-Robert-Heinlein/dp/076531312X) based on Heinlein's outline and notes from 1955. We have a scholarly presentation version of Silmarillion. Is there a modern writer anyone would trust to turn it into fiction?

Eh, I think what we've got works well enough as fiction– is fiction, actually. I could wish Tolkien had completed some of the longer and fuller versions of the stories, though, but that's not to say a modernised pastiche would answer. As for the specific example you mention, it seems to me quite a different case, as it looks like Robinson had very little material to work from in the first place.

[Galin]

This almost makes me wonder if a 'good parts' version of the Silmarillion ought to be written. Spider Robinson wrote a posthumous Heinlein novel, Variable Star, based on Heinlein's outline and notes from 1955. We have a scholarly presentation version of Silmarillion. Is there a modern writer anyone would trust to turn it into fiction?

Not that you say otherwise, but there isn't much in the 1977 Silmarillion that cannot be traced to Tolkien's own writings.

Very briefly described: after writing a very brief 'sketch' of what would turn out to be the First Age, Tolkien wrote a complete and finished version of 'a Silmarillion' in 1930 (Qenta Noldorinwa or QN), then wrote an expanded version in the mid to later 1930s, but left a gap as he jumped to the end (Quenta Silmarillion or QS). There were also the Annals: briefer accounts of the same history covered by QN and QS.

Tolkien sought to publish the Silmarillion at this time, but (long story made short) it was rejected. He then works for a long time on The Lord of the Rings, and in the early 1950s, hoping that the Silmarillion will be published along with The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien expands and updates parts of QS and the Annals (taking up again the long prose versions of the Three Great Tales)

That's really a very simplified description, but anyway, the point is that perhaps there is more extant text than some who have not read The History of Middle-Earth might think. Anyway, when Christopher Tolkien took up the task of making the material public, he began with a different kind of presentation in mind. Guy Kay explained...

'As much as anything else the invitation [to help Christopher] grew out of his perception that the editing would be essentially a 'scholarly' exercise and the model in his mind, I suspect, was that of the academic and his graduate student assistant. The actual process turned out to be radically otherwise…'

'The irony is that the Silmarillion editing ended up being at least as much if not significantly more a creative exercise than a scholarly one. The purely scholarly books are the ones that he's been producing subsequently. The difference between those two is a measure of the difference in the nature of what the editing was all about.'

And Charles Noad explains (with respect to Christopher Tolkien's initial idea to present a scholarly edition of the Silmarillion papers):


This would have resulted in a massive volume, some 1300 printed pages long, say (about the size of the Scull and Hammond Reader's Guide to Tolkien), and two chapters in this style had already been produced when Kay arrived. However, Kay felt strongly that what was needed was a straightforward narrative, shorn of academic apparatus, which advice was eventually adopted by Christopher Tolkien. This approach was tried with 'The Coming of the Elves' where it was felt to work so well that Kay's approach was thereafter adopted. ('A Tower in Beleriand', Charles E. Noad, Amon Hen 91, May 1988, pp.16-18.) It may indeed have worked well, but such a procedure served to give a finished appearance to what was very often disparate and unfinished material.

(...) The process of producing a finished narrative requires a slightly different set of skills than those required for producing an edited text of initially 'inchoate' papers. The latter needs a great deal of analytical intelligence together with specific skills in understanding the relationships between texts, the ability to decipher handwriting sometimes verging on illegibility, a sensitivity of judgement, and the like, qualities which, I feel, any reasonable judge would concur that Christopher Tolkien abundantly displays in The History of Middle-earth. But producing a finished narrative from the results of having edited the texts into legibility and comprehensibility is a slightly different matter. It requires, or at least may require depending on the state of the material being edited, a degree of creativity.

Here I think is where Guy Gavriel Kay enters the picture. Starting with The Fionavar Tapestry (1985-6), Kay has shown himself to be one of the leading authors of literate high fantasy. He is a full-fledged professional writer of fiction in a way that Christopher Tolkien isn't and even his father wasn't. (...) Given that it was Kay's idea to produce a finished narrative rather than a scholarly version (indeed, he has since gone on record as being against the publication of Tolkien's unfinished texts in the History), I would submit that the published Silmarillion owes a good deal in the matter of editorial decision-making to his input. Let me be clear here. I am not saying that we can lay all the presumed 'failings' of the published Silmarillion at Kay's feet, thereby removing all responsibility for its apparent 'defects' from Christopher Tolkien. But I am saying that the presence at a critical juncture in preparing the publication of the 'Silmarillion' material of this creatively gifted young man had a significant effect on the shaping and editing of that material. One would like to know more.

One would like to know more about this, but I think Christopher Tolkien also now approached a one volume version for readers with his own measure of creativity as well, just as he did with The Children of Hurin.

With respect to the ruin of Doriath we find a level of creativity that even Christopher Tolkien came to regret, as the story here contains elements that actually cannot be traced to any of JRRT's writing. Due to the fact that this part of the tale had been skipped in the Quenta Silmarillion of the later 1930s (the 'gap' I referred to), and the fact that The Wanderings of Hurin was abandoned too soon, the 'Silmarillion account' of the Ruin of Doriath still dated from 1930 (QN)!

Even Christopher Tolkien later noted that he probably could have stuck better to his father's intent, but as an example of CJRT's opinion of the story as it stood in Quenta Noldorinwa, he noted that it ruins the gesture if Hurin asks for Thingol's aid to carry the treasure to Menegroth -- the very treasure Hurin will then use to cast at Thingol's feet to try to humiliate the Elf. That's a creative decision in my opinion, even though it went against the actual story as it stood in 1930 (thus in the 1977 Silmarillion, Hurin alone brings the Nauglamir to Thingol, without need of aid, not the treasure from which the Nauglamir is later made).


In any case, here is a notable reference to something that hails from the relevant part of the story.

There is one point where Kane attempts a justification for a book such as this one. He notes (Kane, p. 216) that in The Road to Middle-earth Tom Shippey cites 'Thingol's death in the dark while he looks at the captured Light' (of the Silmaril) as an example of Tolkien's genius for creating compelling images. However, 'Thingol's death in the dark recesses of Menegroth was completely an invention of the editors', hence 'The fact that as renown[ed] a Tolkien scholar as Shippey would have this kind of mistaken impression is a strong indication of the need for a work like the present one.'

Well now, catching out Shippey must count as pretty neat, but one might admire the editors for so well creating, out of the requirements of the reconstructed narrative, so Tolkienian an image. It must prove something.'

Charles Noad review of Doug Kane's Arda Reconstructed

Sorry for the length, but I think Mr. Noad raises some interesting points here.

[FlimFlamSam]

Durelin spoke: [What is it that makes The Silmarillion more difficult for you (or anyone) to read? What makes it (more) 'boring' (to some)?]
Not so much difficult, unless you count all the other crap like Unfinished Tales, the HoME series, and everything else all lumped in with it, including Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

Boring might be a better description. Creation myths make me retch. And the pseudo-Christianity gossamer veil underlying the tales just frankly irks me anyway. Myth should be shrouded in vagueness, not meticulously examined. The brief allusions in Lord of the Rings are enough. Too much, as it turns out--after he revised it.

Galin spoke: [Tolkien sought to publish the Silmarillion at this time, but (long story made short) it was rejected. He then works for a long time on The Lord of the Rings, and in the early 1950s, hoping that the Silmarillion will be published along with The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien expands and updates parts of QS and the Annals (taking up again the long prose versions of the Three Great Tales)]
Yeah, and then throws a bunch of stuff into the revised version of Lord of the Rings like a pimp whoring out some aged, flabby, mascara and poundcake-make-up encrusted and frankly nasty piece of work hoping to make an extra shilling on a two-for-one deal. Ever seen Cheech Marin outside the Titty-Twister in From Dusk till Dawn?

If they had published The Silmarillion then, he would have never written Lord of the Rings.

Borrowing a few allusions like Gondolin, Nargothrond, Beren & Bride, and little tid-bits is one thing to establish a backdrop. The Silmarillion (and other materials) is like George Lucas on a CGI-fest, re-writing his own material and saying "it's always been like that!". "Geedo always shot first!". "Anakin always looked like that!"

In a nut-shell, without my bias; The Silmarillion was never finished because Mr. Tolkien never really wanted to finish it, and it shows when reading it.

[Galin]

Yeah, and then throws a bunch of stuff into the revised version of Lord of the Rings like a pimp whoring out some aged, flabby, mascara and poundcake-make-up encrusted and frankly nasty piece of work hoping to make an extra shilling on a two-for-one deal. Ever seen Cheech Marin outside the Titty-Twister in From Dusk till Dawn?

Quoted just to make it clear that you, not me, are the author of these words.


In the future I would appreciate it -- if you choose to quote me for some reason -- that you do so with more distinction than simply putting my words in italic script (directly followed by your response without much of a break). Using the quote function is easy enough, like this.

Especially if you continue to respond in this manner.

[Nerwen]

@FlimFlamSam

Um... is this intentional trolling, or do you really not realise how absurd you sound?

I mean, some of us do happen to like the The Silm, and "all the other crap". Of course you're entitled not to like it, and to say so– but the way in you've expressed your opinion leaves much to be desired. After all, if you don't want to know any more of the background than appears in Lord of the Rings, there's an easy solution: don't read it. And don't heap ridiculous verbal abuse on a long-dead author for having failed somehow to arrange all his creative efforts around you.:rolleyes:

If, on the other hand, this is all just a satire on the "Angry Fan Boy" persona, then well done! The pointless whining about "Star Wars" is an especially nice touch.:smokin:

EDIT:X'd with Galin.

[Nerwen]

Galin, on re-reading this fellow's post, I believe this is all a leg-pull. No-one really gets that frotho about the bloody Silmarillion. Or about Tolkien having revised the second edition of Lord of the Rings. This is all a joke on the "they-changed-it-now-it-sucks" fanboy type. (Again, note Star Wars references.)

Come, on, Mr Flim Flam, 'fess up!:smokin:

[FlimFlamSam]

Galin spoke: [Quoted just to make it clear that you, not me, are the author of these words.]
So, you missed the "Galin spoke" part? There was a "Durelin spoke" as well first.

Galin spoke: [In the future I would appreciate it -- if you choose to quote me for some reason -- that you do so with more distinction than simply putting my words in italic script (directly followed by your response without much of a break).]
Multi-quoting. Just like in this post.
Nothing in the FAQ about quoting regulations.

Galin spoke: [Especially if you continue to respond in this manner.]
Yeppers. :)

Nerwen spoke: [Um... is this intentional trolling, or do you really not realise how absurdyou sound?]
Absurd? Nope. Trolling? Nope.

Nerwen spoke: [Come, on, Mr Flim Flam, 'fess up!]
I really just don't like it. I've spent nearly 30 years now wasting my time reading all the other books with meticulous care as they came out and have come to now LOATH The Silmarillion and attached materials in all forms except what is breifly alluded to in Lord of the Rings, and even then it's a stretch for me, simply due to past exposure to the other books.
Guilt by association, as it were.

Nerwen spoke: [And don't heap ridiculous verbal abuse on a long-dead author for having failed somehow to arrange all his creative efforts around you.]
It's called criticism.

Nerwen spoke: [Of course you're entitled not to like it, and to say so– but the way in you've expressed your opinion leaves much to be desired.]
I did say so. And your opinion was to say "absurd" and "ridiculous".
Something you are also "entitled" to say. See how that works?

I even gave a summary.
"In a nut-shell, without my bias; The Silmarillion was never finished because Mr. Tolkien never really wanted to finish it, and it shows when reading it."

[Galin]

So, you missed the "Galin spoke" part? There was a "Durelin spoke" as well first.

No I didn't miss it, which is why I asked you to make more of a distinction, because 'Galin spoke' no such thing.

Nothing in the FAQ about quoting regulations.

It was, in any case, a request that you are free to ignore (as far as I know), unless moderation says otherwise for whatever reason.

[Nerwen]

Galin, he's just trying to pick fights. It's obvious.

[FlimFlamSam]

Galin spoke: [because 'Galin spoke' no such thing]
Galin spoke (ok, "wrote" to be technical) the words in parenthesis as quoted and then was replied to--by me.

Nerwen spoke: [he's just trying to pick fights. It's obvious.]
And... you'd be wrong again, on both counts.

[Inziladun]

Galin spoke: [because 'Galin spoke' no such thing]
Galin spoke (ok, "wrote" to be technical) the words in parenthesis as quoted and then was replied to--by me.

To avoid confusion, there is another means of quoting others.

Nerwen spoke: [he's just trying to pick fights. It's obvious.]
And... you'd be wrong again, on both counts.

The issue from my point of view is that you choose rather vulgar ways of making your case. For instance:

Yeah, and then throws a bunch of stuff into the revised version of Lord of the Rings like a pimp whoring out some aged, flabby, mascara and poundcake-make-up encrusted and frankly nasty piece of work hoping to make an extra shilling on a two-for-one deal. Ever seen Cheech Marin outside the Titty-Twister in From Dusk till Dawn?

A little tact, and taste, goes a long way here.

[Galadriel55]

In a nut-shell, without my bias; The Silmarillion was never finished because Mr. Tolkien never really wanted to finish it, and it shows when reading it.

I disagree. I don't think it was Tolkien's goal to complete a book for the sake of completing it. He never wrote books for people to like them; he wasn't like the many modern authors writing what the audience expects them to. JRRT wrote what he thought was the right thing to write, not something that would "catch".

JRRT never made it his goal to finish The Sil, that's true. But one of his goals was to make his writings right. New ideas kept comming, and, as you well know, Tolkien was not an Elf.

You can see that The Sil was unfinished, but, personally, I never had the feeling that JRRT "didn't want to finish it". He didn't want to complete it until he was sure everthing was right, true, but that's different from what you say.


I will add myself to those asking you to quote others differently (like I did above). It makes posts much easier to read.


ETA:

Nerwen spoke: [he's just trying to pick fights. It's obvious.]
And... you'd be wrong again, on both counts.

Well, it sure seems to me that Nerwen is right in this one. Maybe you can try phrasing your thoughts differently, so that we'll see that we're wrong?

[FlimFlamSam]

Galadriel55 spoke: [You can see that The Sil was unfinished, but, personally, I never had the feeling that JRRT "didn't want to finish it". He didn't want to complete it until he was sure everthing was right, true, but that's different from what you say.]
No, it was his lifelong hobby.
One he did not want to "finish".

Even when re-writing things from Lord of the Rings to better fit into his Silmarillion. Same as he did for The Hobbit to better fit with Lord of the Rings. "Until everything was right" is highly subjective.
He just plain liked to tinker, even with "completed" things.

Galadriel55 spoke: [Maybe you can try phrasing your thoughts differently, so that we'll see that we're wrong?]
All right. So I'll dismiss the long-standing covert letter campaign to Tolkien groups and their heads (and fans) alluding to his Silmarillion and complaining that readers wouldn't like it according to the publisher; along with letters to the publisher itself.

Or other little side-notes in things like The Road Goes Ever On: A Song Cycle or The Adventures of Tom Bombadil trying to generate interest in fans for his mass of jumbled notes and half completed and often contrary tales he called The Silmarillion, where the general public believed it to be complete and ready for publication and simply shunned by the publishing company. Not to mention public appearances where the same was done.

It was simple martyr syndrome. A much more agreeable situation to him, especially as he was a self-admitted heavy-duty procrastinator (not only in writing but in his academic professorship duties as well--see the multitude of admitted instances in Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien); and he received a ready excuse of sympathy from fans for enduring a long-suffered rebuke.

[Inziladun]

All right. So I'll dismiss the long-standing covert letter campaign to Tolkien groups and their heads (and fans) alluding to his Silmarillion and complaining that readers wouldn't like it according to the publisher; along with letters to the publisher itself.

Or other little side-notes in things like The Road Goes Ever On: A Song Cycle or The Adventures of Tom Bombadil trying to generate interest in fans for his mass of jumbled notes and half completed and often contrary tales he called The Silmarillion, where the general public believed it to be complete and ready for publication and simply shunned by the publishing company. Not to mention public appearances where the same was done.

Personally, I like the "finished" Silmarillion as a stand-alone work, for all its faults. I am grateful to CT for seeing to its publication.

You don't care for it, apparently. I think that's quite clear.

[Galin]

Christopher Tolkien gave his opinion (Morgth's Ring) that his father was 'deeply committed' to publishing The Silmarillion along with The Lord of the Rings, which I would say is somewhat reflected in Tolkien almost changing publishers...

... CJRT adding that despair of publication at this time was (he thinks) a prime cause that so much work on updating the Silmarillion in the early fifties came to a halt (includes introducing Galadriel to the Silmarilion, a new character, just for example) -- noting also that this break proved to be destructive with respect to the larger picture and the Silmarillion remaining unfinished.

[FlimFlamSam]

Inziladun spoke: [You don't care for it, apparently. I think that's quite clear.]
Yeppers. Clear as crystal I think.
I've already said I was deeply immersed in it on both a reading level and scholarly level for nearly 30 years. Now--get it away from me!
Almost like a bad marriage that was once good. :)

Unfortunately there are no Lord of the Rings only message boards that deal strictly with Lord of the Rings and not any accessory books.

Galin spoke:
That worked out well!

Somewhat?
He burnt that bridge with glee didn't he? Then had to come crawling back and do some sketchy repair work, and do some boot-licking.

Letter #123 is hilarious. "Dilatory coils of Allen & Unwin". What a riot.

#124 is even funnier. "I cannot contemplate any drastic re-writing or compression." Then asking for the formal letter declining to publish for legal matters after declaring it a bloated (600,000 words and a scary thing to contemplate publishing at the time; in addition to the estimated 400,000 words of the then Silmarillion) monster unfit for children, which is what the publishers were expecting and made monetary payments for-- a sequel to The Hobbit and thereby hoping they would reject it by asking (nay demanding later) to have them publish both. Since that was a condition the new publisher was ready to accept, once Mr Tolkien finished the Silmarillion he wanted to go there instead. And STILL trying to pimp The Silmarillion [B]at the same time[/BI] to Allen & Unwin as the better alternative to publishing Lord of the Rings instead.
And to publish them both NOW!

#125 Reminding Allen & Unwin how long the book is and that he doubted readers would stick with it, aside from his close friends. Yeah, you don't want to publish [I]that! Especially since it cannot be divided up artifically into smaller books for ease of publication. So sorry Charlie. Reject it! Reject it!
You want this nearly equally long and clearly unfinished book instead! You know, the one you already rejected (albeit through misunderstanding of the lay instead of prose).
But I understand if you want to back out now. Do it! Do it! Riot!

#127 Are you going to publish both or not? Yes or no? No! Oh happy days!

#133 After the new publisher backed out due to the very things Mr Tolkien used to get out of his Allen & Unwin contract.

To Allen & Unwin--"I have modified my views" (because I need money and you were at least willing to publish Lord of the Rings until I was a jerk and uncompromising in order to get out of the contract and go elsewhere). "Can anything be done to unlock the gates I have slammed myself?".
Oh BTW belated congratulations on your marriage that I never gave earlier because I was angry with you and hoped your slimy soul rotted in purgatory.
I uhhh had tennis elbow, yeah that was it. Call anytime! Hoping to hear from you!

[Galadriel55]

FlimFlam, think whatever you want of The Sil - even if you think it's not worth the paper it's printed on - but do not be so disrespectful towards JRRT. To paraphrase a line from LOTR, if you have nothing to say but ill, please keep silent.

[Nerwen]

FlimFlamSam–

Again, if you don't like it, don't read it. Again, why should you expect any writer's creative output and method of working to be tailored to you personally? I have seen this attitude in teenagers, of course, but most of them do, however, eventually grow up and realise that the world does not revolve around them. By your own account, however, you are a man of mature years– which quite honestly shocks me.

Also, there is the matter of your attitude towards other posters. While it is true that I have been pretty blunt, others have been much more polite and forbearing– and you've replied to them, too, in a tone of what I can only call dismissive contempt. You have made it quite clear that you have no respect for anyone else's opinion, and no interest in anything I should call discussion.

I have to ask: if, as you claim, you are not here to stir people and pick fights... then why?

[Morthoron]

FlimFlamSam types, FlimFlamSam opines, but FlimFlamSam seems incapable of using the quote button at the bottom right-hand corner of each post, thus irritating other posters by taking their quotations out of context and jumbling his hyperbole in with their points. Here's an example for FlimFlamSam to follow:

I've already said I was deeply immersed in it on both a reading level and scholarly level for nearly 30 years. Now--get it away from me!
Almost like a bad marriage that was once good.

How odd it is for someone to have allegedly studied an author's corpus on a "scholarly" level for three decades, but then suddenly become jaded on the subject or, rather, the foundational aspects of the material (which act as cosmological underpinnings for a grandly epochal subcreated mythos). One might think, on a strictly cynical level, that using the term "flim flam" as a nom de guerre is far too apt in this case to be coincidental.

[LadyBrooke]

Not so much difficult, unless you count all the other crap like Unfinished Tales, the HoME series, and everything else all lumped in with it, including Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.
Which many of us enjoy on this site, and you're setting yourself up to be greatly mocked.

Boring might be a better description. Creation myths make me retch.
Hey, I'm not a doctor, but I think I have a solution for this retching of yours. If creation myths make you retch, don't read them.

Yeah, and then throws a bunch of stuff into the revised version of Lord of the Rings like a pimp whoring out some aged, flabby, mascara and poundcake-make-up encrusted and frankly nasty piece of work hoping to make an extra shilling on a two-for-one deal.
I'm not sure which part of that abusive, partially misogynist statement to attack first. Did you have a bad experience with a prostitute then? Is that why you're in such a bad mood?

If they had published The Silmarillion then, he would have never written Lord of the Rings.
And...? Guess what, and I don't want to shock you, but - he's the author. He gets to decide what he writes.

In a nut-shell, without my bias; The Silmarillion was never finished because Mr. Tolkien never really wanted to finish it, and it shows when reading it.
Bias: a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question.
Your prejudice against the Silm seems to be crowding your ability to fully consider anything anybody else says. You want to know why the Silm shows it was never finished - because Tolkien died while writing his myth, and it was put together after his death by his son. So in your mind, dying = not wanting to finish it. Okkaayyy....

Nothing in the FAQ about quoting regulations.
I think the mods assumed that anybody posting here would be able to understand that the quote tool was there for a reason - clearly, as you have proved, they vastly overestimated the intelligence of trolls/idiots (as you deny you are the first, you must be assumed that latter.)

I really just don't like it. I've spent nearly 30 years now wasting my time reading all the other books with meticulous care as they came out and have come to now LOATH The Silmarillion and attached materials in all forms except what is breifly alluded to in Lord of the Rings, and even then it's a stretch for me, simply due to past exposure to the other books.
I've heard of slow readers, but really? It took you 30 years to realize you didn't like a book? Wow. You must have read a word a day.

It's called criticism.
It's called this is a fansite (note the FAN part), and criticism does not necessitate harsh words, insults, or small minds that refuse to admit any opinion but there own is right.

I did say so. And your opinion was to say "absurd" and "ridiculous".
No, she said the manner in which you expressed yourself was absurd and ridiculous. Perhaps a class in reading comprehension is in order?

No, it was his lifelong hobby.
One he did not want to "finish".
Oh! I see, Tolkien should have quit his job and lived on the dole, just so that he could work on the books 24/7. He could even have sent his kids off to boot camp or something, so there would be no distractions. /sarcasm

He just plain liked to tinker, even with "completed" things.
And that is wrong because? It was his work - he was free to do whatever he wanted with it.

All right. So I'll dismiss the long-standing covert letter campaign to Tolkien groups and their heads (and fans) alluding to his Silmarillion and complaining that readers wouldn't like it according to the publisher; along with letters to the publisher itself.
Again, it's wrong for him to mention that he disagrees with the publisher because why?

[FlimFlamSam]

Morthoron spoke:
Suddenly? Nope.
Nor am I new here. Well, I haven't posted for about 10-12 years here or thereabouts, so I guess that does make me new or a newcomer in a manner of speaking.
The people who knew me best back then; HerenIstarion, Mithadan, Tar-Elenion, Lindil and a few others are most likely no longer here and I have not checked on their status as of yet. They knew The Silmarillion had burned me out back then, and one of the reasons I left.

Not to toot any horns really--especially in this [B]very ironic sense considering my now long-standing views--but it was using HOME and other texts in creating a cohesive Silmarillion for myself and mentioning in a discussion thread regarding the Lord of the Rings Epilogue the merging of texts that I had done that led to the idea of the Translation from the Elvish project here as a cooperative venture based on The Silmarillion merging I had already done. The idea of doing it again--in committee no less... no way.
In retrospect, I wish I had never done it. But what is done is done.

Since then, my gag-reflex towards those materials, including UT, and everything else not strictly Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit has taken irreversible hold. Inversely, my appreciation for those two books has increased.
In "tailoring to me", I do that myself on those texts, removing and altering as much of the offending material as I wish. :)

As for attacks against me from others... knock yourselves out. :D
I have attacked no poster. I have summarized my views in appropriate threads and paraphrased some letters and posted on fairly recent topics in others as digging up new threads months old serves little purpose. I have done some criticism of Mr Tolkien and his work. That seems to upset some people--in some cases deeply. Oh well.

[Nerwen]

How odd it is for someone to have allegedly studied an author's corpus on a "scholarly" level for three decades, but then suddenly become jaded on the subject or, rather, the foundational aspects of the material (which act as cosmological underpinnings for a grandly epochal subcreated mythos). One might think, on a strictly cynical level, that using the term "flim flam" as a nom de guerre is far too apt in this case to be coincidental.

I've heard of slow readers, but really? It took you 30 years to realize you didn't like a book? Wow. You must have read a word a day.

Indeed. I don't like to accuse anyone of outright lying, but I must say that I too am finding this "30 years of meticulous scholarship" business very hard to believe. I mean, all this sounds to me much more like somebody who has only recently dipped into Tolkien's non–LotR writings, and become infuriated that they didn't fit whatever his preconceptions were.

EDIT:X'd with Mr FlimFlam himself.

[Nerwen]

Morthoron spoke: [but then suddenly become jaded on the subject or, rather, the foundational aspects of the material.]
Suddenly? Nope.
Nor am I new here. Well, I haven't posted for about 10-12 years here or thereabouts, so I guess that does make me new or a newcomer in a manner of speaking.
The people who knew me best back then; HerenIstarion, Mithadan, Tar-Elenion, Lindil and a few others are most likely no longer here and I have not checked on their status as of yet.
The first two mentioned are still around. Perhaps they can shed some light on this.

I have done some criticism of Mr Tolkien and his work. That seems to upset some people--in some cases deeply. Oh well.

Once again– it was not the bare fact of your criticising Tolkien's work, which you are welcome to do, it was the manner in which you did it.

[FlimFlamSam]

Nerwen spoke: [The first two mentioned are still around. Perhaps they can shed some light on this.]
Thank you for the information. :)

I have passed through fire and Tolkien internet death and have come back at the turn of the tide.
If it matters that much to you, grab your phial and call out "A Elbereth Gilthoniel!"

[Nerwen]

Since then, my gag-reflex towards those materials, including UT, and everything else not strictly Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit has taken irreversible hold.
Then there's not much point your posting about it on a discussion forum, is there?

I have summarized my views in appropriate threads and paraphrased some letters and posted on fairly recent topics in others
Oh yes. I was actually about to ask if you were, er, let's say acquainted with a certain other recent member who showed much the same strange pattern of simultaneous trolling on some threads and "scholarly" posting on others. But then I remembered he was amenable to using the quote button.

[Nerwen]

Btw., I should have should have said "the first three"– lindil is also still active.

[Galin]

Saulotus

[Nerwen]

Saulotus

Yeppers.:rolleyes:

[Inziladun]

The people who knew me best back then; HerenIstarion, Mithadan, Tar-Elenion, Lindil and a few others are most likely no longer here and I have not checked on their status as of yet. They knew The Silmarillion had burned me out back then, and one of the reasons I left.

And they might know you still, if you were posting under your original account. By the way, what was your forum handle then?

Saulotus

I'd wondered about that. But I'd thought he was gone for good, for another reason having nothing to do with the forum.

[Nerwen]

And they might know you still, if you were posting under your original account. By the way, what was your forum handle then?
Originally Posted by Galin
Saulotus

I'd wondered about that. But I'd thought he was gone for good, for another reason having nothing to do with the forum.
From a skim of the early threads, I'd say they cannot be other than the same person.

[FlimFlamSam]

Nerwen spoke: [lindil is also still active]
Thank you for the information again. :)

Inziladun spoke: [But I'd thought he was gone for good, for another reason having nothing to do with the forum.]
Well I did say one of the reasons. What reason did you believe? Answer in PM if you feel that more approriate--where most of this discussion should have been held anyway. I did get married around that time as well, so maybe that is what you are thinking of. Or not.

I needed the break--badly. Tolkien had truly burned me out.
In fact, I have been away from the internet completely for about 2 years or thereabouts now. Before that, it was at best infrequent visits. Messageboards (and their lure of sucking up so much time) being the chief culprit. I must say, there is a very suspicious and in some cases extreme bunch here though. That is not so encouraging.

I also said I wasn't trolling, nor attacking posters.
If I were, there were ample opportunities to take advantage of.

Inziladun spoke: [And they might know you still, if you were posting under your original account.]
Frankly, I couldn't remember what name I had back then, nor particularly cared. As for posting under it, I wasn't even looking to bring it up at all, but the rather lenghty circumstances of this thread seemed to require it as proof of both my intent and sincerity of reply.

Nerwen spoke: [Then there's not much point your posting about it on a discussion forum, is there?]
In a topic like: Why is the Silmarillion so difficult (to read)?
For me, now you know. I discussed it. :p

[Nerwen]

I also said I wasn't trolling, nor attacking posters.
If I were, there were ample opportunities to take advantage of.

Inziladun spoke: [And they might know you still, if you were posting under your original account.]
Frankly, I couldn't remember what name I had back then, nor particularly cared. As for posting under it, I wasn't even looking to bring it up at all, but the rather lenghty circumstances of this thread seemed to require it as proof of both my intent and sincerity of reply.

Nerwen spoke: [Then there's not much point your posting about it on a discussion forum, is there?]
In a topic like: Why is the Silmarillion so difficult (to read)?
For me, now you know. I discussed it. :p
No you didn't, FlimFlam. You ranted hysterically, used offensive hyperbole of the kind guaranteed to get a hostile response, and treated other posters with contempt, even the polite ones. That's trolling, my friend. Simply saying you're not doing it changes nothing (all trolls deny it!). Unfortunately you're not, it seems, doing the fun, hoaxing kind of trolling, as I first thought, but rather the "gratuitously antagonise everybody just to get attention" kind.

And if by any chance you're not doing all this on purpose, then I say in all sincerity that I think you have some pretty serious problems with relating to other people.

EDIT: And just so we're on the same page– please be aware that I know you've come a-trollin' here before, under yet another identity– Bob. As if your "injured innocence" routine wasn't transparent enough anyway. :p

[Morthoron]

Morthoron spoke: [but then suddenly become jaded on the subject or, rather, the foundational aspects of the material.]
Suddenly? Nope.
Nor am I new here. Well, I haven't posted for about 10-12 years here or thereabouts, so I guess that does make me new or a newcomer in a manner of speaking.
The people who knew me best back then; HerenIstarion, Mithadan, Tar-Elenion, Lindil and a few others are most likely no longer here and I have not checked on their status as of yet. They knew The Silmarillion had burned me out back then, and one of the reasons I left.

So, you held the same opinion a decade ago, but decided to reiterate the same unproductive rhetoric in case any of the newer posters missed it? From the tenor of your posts, it seems unlikely you are interested in discussion, so what is the point?

And how interesting that you forgot your original sign-in name, yet were able to recall four other members by name from 10-12 years ago. That sort of selective memory must be incredibly rare. One could say nonexistent. Rather like your posting etiquette (and you can quote me on it, if you can actually use the quote function).

[rriebsomer]

Hi. I'm new here. I have read the Silmarillion more than once. I think it's difficult for lots of reasons. Christopher Tolkien actually put it together from his father's writings posthumously. Professor Tolkien never really finished it.

It's very dark and tragic. It's a complex legendarium beginning with a creation story and a fall out of paradise. There is not as much dialogue.

Tolkien started writing this while in the trenches at the Battle of the Somme in WW I. I'm not sure that it's as mature a creation as the Lord of the Rings.

For me the most interesting story is Beren and Luthien. I found that by reading Unfinished Tales, certain gaps in the legendarium were filled in ie what happened with the necklace the dwarves made for Thingol after he received the Silmaril Beren wrested from the crown of Morgoth.

I think many readers find it pessimistic and would prefer the eucatastrophe of the Lord of the Rings, the happily ever after ending.

I read it because like Frodo I wanted to hear the elder tales. So now when I read the Lord of the Rings and there are references to the First Age, I know exactly what they are talking about.

This is a great question and a great topic for discussion. Thanks for introducing it.

[Galadriel55]

I think many readers find it pessimistic and would prefer the eucatastrophe of the Lord of the Rings, the happily ever after ending.

Well, I, for one, do not like "happily ever after" endings, and I don't think that LOTR ended that way. I recall reading a thread specifically about this, and the general opinion was that, as good as the overall situation seems to be, there is sadness and sorrow in it.

On the contrary, I rather like the "epicness" of The Sil's ending, and just everywhere in it. But the final words are priceless - how the seeds of lies will always bear fruit and etc.

I think you have a good point when you say that there isn't much dialogue, though. This might really be one of the reasons that people have trouble understanding it. If, in LOTR, you can understad a character based on his/her words, in The Sil you only have their actions.

I read it because like Frodo I wanted to hear the elder tales. So now when I read the Lord of the Rings and there are references to the First Age, I know exactly what they are talking about.

Same story here!

[Galadriel]

[QUOTE=rriebsomer;659959]Hi. I'm new here.

Welcome to the Downs :)

It's very dark and tragic. It's a complex legendarium beginning with a creation story and a fall out of paradise. There is not as much dialogue.

I do mourn the lack of dialogue, but then again, the book would cover five thousand pages or more if Tolkien had entertained that idea.

Tolkien started writing this while in the trenches at the Battle of the Somme in WW I. I'm not sure that it's as mature a creation as the Lord of the Rings.

It is younger, yes, but I find it infinitely more mature than LotR either way, aside from a few paragraphs/chapters.

For me the most interesting story is Beren and Luthien.

Really? I hated that one :p

I think many readers find it pessimistic and would prefer the eucatastrophe of the Lord of the Rings, the happily ever after ending.

I really do not think that LotR had a 'happily ever after' ending, and am duly grateful for that. It left a bittersweet aftertaste that I could digest more easily than a sickly sweet one.