More
http://www.thesunchronicle.com/artic...news/news4.txt

The Helmet.............
 

I got my books at Moreton-in-Marsh on Sunday 22nd, I bought a normal hardback for reading and the Deluxe edition (which comes with the picture of Turin unspoilt by text), I spoke to Alan Lee about whether he'd been influenced by any other helmet when drawing the Dragon-helm of Dor-lomin, Lal had asked me to pose this question, he replied that he had not, however he may have subconsciously done so without knowing, he signed my books, one to myself and one to my alter ego U.R.R Jokin, and I went to off to get my Silmarillions signed by Ted Nasmith which took ages because my friends were in the middle of buying the original painting for The Kinslaying at Alqualonde, and prints of The Riders of Rohan and An Unexpected Morning Visit (Bag End).

Just glanced at the Sun-Chronicle review
http://www.thesunchronicle.com/artic...news/news4.txt

Does this make any sense at all? The story originated in the BoLT (circa 1917), & the Narn was composed in the 1950's.

Is Drout kidding, or just being provocative?

Tolkien podcast
http://www.sqpn.com/

I don't know if Tolkien in the 50s really had the Nazis especially in mind, any more than he did when writing Lord of the Rings (when they were still around)- and of course the basic lineaments of the story go back to the old Kaiser.

I do think however that Tolkien was more-or-less consciously creating an anti-Siegfried, a counter to the Wagnerian portrait which JRRT I'm sure found repulsive. Wagner's hero was indeed an Ubermensch, at least in the Nietzchean if not quite the Nazi sense, an embodiment of Might Makes Right and Triumph of the Will. For Tolkien, both notions were not only wrong but extremely dangerous- as Turin's story shows.

Up to a point - I can almost accept - at a stretch - that the story of Numenor owes something to what was happening in Germany in the 30's/40's, but was the ubermensch in his mind to such an extent during the writing of CoH? After all, by the time of writing CoH the world had already seen the failure of the Nazi 'ideal'?

I did start a thread some time back on Tolkien & the Nazis - asking whether his desire to create a 'mythology for England' (& his subsequent statement that in that his 'crest had long since fallen') had been shattered by the use to which the Nazis had put Northern myth. It seems at least possible. National myth suddenly seemed to carry a very dangerous potential. Yet, as I say, by the time he turned to write CoH its clear that if all he was doing was attempting to show the flaw in the Nazi ideal he was pretty much preaching to the converted.

It makes very little sense as stated. However, one certainly could see the 'Narn' as a rebuttal of the 'ubermensch' in a different context. Tolkien draws, of course, on the whole body of Germanic myth concerned with Siegfried/Sigurd and the Volsungs - the same body of myth that Wagner drew on (Tolkien would probably say 'perverted') in his Ring cycle. If there's any connection between Nietzsche and the Turin saga surely it lies in the analogy between Turin and Siegfried.

You see, that makes sense, but Drout's comment doesn't. Of course, I don't see CoH simply as Tolkien sticking two fingers up at Wagner. Turin isn't simply an anti-ubermensch figure - for all his reckless pride he is a sympathetic figure, a human being. Tolkien isn't satirising, or mocking the Nazi ideal in the figure of Turin. He is showing a man whose reach exceeded his grasp. Turin constantly fails, but he fails heroically. I can't escape the feeling that Tolkien did consider Turin a hero, that he admired him for what he attempted, rather than offering him as an example of overweening pride.

Davem wrote:
Oh, certainly. As with most of Tolkien’s work, there many layers or shades of meaning in the ‘Narn’. Actually, I think that the Siegfried/Wagner thing is one of the less important thematic threads. But I do think it’s there. It’s as if Tolkien was fashioning a great heroic masterpiece without a thought about ubermenschen, then, by chance, he happens to think of Wagner and says, “Incidentally, this is the true spirit of those old Germanic myths, not that nonsense about supermen.”

Aiwendil

Good review here

http://thetyee.ca/Books/2007/04/26/MiddleEarth/

A view from another angle...
 

This isn't surprising but there were copies of Children of Hurin being sold on e-bay today, which Christopher Tolkien and Alan Lee had purportedly signed. One look at the signatures will tell you that they were definitely fake.. There were an even larger number of bogus bookplates "signed" by Lee and Christopher Tolkien offered for purchase (totally separate from any book).

For a rather humorous but sad discussion of these type of forgeries, which seem to be more commonplace every day, see this thread on a collecting website: here. A number of the posters on this forum are book dealers.

The family and estate has to hate this kind of thing.

http://www.boston.com/ae/books/artic..._lure_of_hrin/

http://media.wildcat.arizona.edu/med...-2882861.shtml

I think many of us saw this coming. Have to say that I wouldn't trust any of the signed items on ebay at the moment. And much of the fault should be laid at the doors of the publishers & booksellers - of course if you effectively 'dump' 450 signed bookplates in one store, & offer them on a first come first served basis, you're playing into the hands of the con men. People know there are a whole lot of the things out there, but they have no idea of who got them & whether the ones advertised are genuine or not.

I can't for the life of me see why the bookplates weren't numbered for instance, so that it would have been possible to check for duplicates.I wonder how many of these fakes will pass muster & end up being treated as genuine?

Old one
http://www.boston.com/news/world/eur...en_or_isnt_it/

What about

Hadn't seen this about specific companies, or that the Estate had put them off until after publication' before.....

http://blog.cleveland.com/pdextra/20...f_middlee.html

& http://www.kansas.com/473/story/54975.html

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/402/story/27191.html

http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/lo...117001335.html

John Garth's review finally available
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main...26/botol22.xml

Think this is new

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...003424,00.html

I have to say that I am very excited to see this book out. Thanks for all the great review links, Dave M and everyone. Aiwendil, your little review was very helpful: just the thing I was looking for before jumping in to it.
A friend and I were looking through the introduction and were intrigued by one particular passage and perhaps our excitement and optimism has gotten the best of us, but what do you think?

Is there a possibility that CoH is the first of three new publications from the Tolkien family? I imagine that with a group like these members if there were any rumblings out there about such a thing, someone here would have heard about it.

Of course, the preface continues with this note immediately after the above quote:

Does this mean that CoH is the only one he considers "big" enough to do a complete book on? Why wouldn't Beren and Luthien or the Fall of Gondolin qualify?

What are your thoughts, and what have you heard on it in out there in the world?

No - it just means that Children of Hurin is the only one of the three Great Tales that Tolkien brought near enough to completion in a novel length version (or, let's be honest, a novella length version, given the size of the text & margins chosen for this edition) to be publishable.

There won't be any more - unless someone is authorised to write fuller versions based on the shorter accounts & notes Tolkien left - in which case they won't be genuine 'Tolkien' books, but fanfic.

CoH is all we're going to get from Tolkien's hand, sadly.

(I'm reminded of that line in 'Illuninatus!' by Shea & Wilson, about 'the original being published in heaven'....)

Found the Mail on Sunday review that annoyed Mith so much

http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/viewer.aspx

(Just in case the link doesn't work, here's the text:
Not nearly as funny as his review of 'Children of Quidsin' in this weeks Private Eye

Nick Lezard at the Guardian is a bit ambivalent, but he certainly knows his Tolkien:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/s...066919,00.html

A Cathoic perspective

http://www.zenit.org/english/visuali...tml?sid=106711

Audio book in September
 

Some more


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../Entertainment


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main...28/botol28.xml

Pics of the launch in London

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/alanlee/

Is that a guy wearing a replica of the Dragon Helm, or has someone's axolotl got loose?

Just finished! Care to hear some of my initial post-read impressions? If not, then too bad. ;-)

First of all, I think it's important for me to explain the context in which I read this novel (or novella, as many have labeled it). My favorite work of Tolkien's is probably The Silmarillion, though I hadn't read it in several years. After hearing news of the new book, I felt it appropriate to reread the Sil in preparation, and to simply re-adjust to Tolkien's style before CoH was released. I also bought Unfinished Tales, which I still haven't read, but am now very eager to delve into. So here's my position pre-CoH: I adore The Silmarillion, and loved Turin's tale, but was forgetful of all but the major plot points.

Long story short: I planned to read the Sil in its entirety, but due to a busy schedule I didn't through it all in time. As it turns out, I reached to midway through the Nirnaeth before I picked up CoH on its release day. Yet here was a magnificent stroke of fortune in that, inadvertently, I had set myself up for the optimum reading experience because not only were all of the names and events of the First Age fresh in my mind, but I had transitioned at the perfect point from one book to the next, as the Nirnaeth is given chapter treatment in the new book. Compounded with my hazy memory of Turin and failure to read the UT Narn, my reading experience was fresh, exciting, and rewarding.

Now for my quick-hit thoughts about the material itself:

--One of the best surprises was how the story itself is both epic as well as intimate. I love the Sil unabashedly for its sheer scope and brilliance, but rarely did its tales become overtly personal. It was told from a distance as a detached mythological tome. Now I don't fault the Sil for this, because that was exactly its purpose. But when reading CoH I was stuck by how the events, which unfolded more at the "ground level" so to speak, became more immediate. Lalaith's death due to the Evil Breath better captures Morgoth's evil than any far-reaching description of his dark magic because Turin's pain is so tangible. That said, the story still manages to create the illusion of "distance" of the Sil, as if it were a genuine lost tale of Middle-Earth. The balance between past and present is struck to perfection here.

--I've heard a few remarks about this novel being "light on characterization", but aside from a few of the arbitrary minor characters that Tolkien throws in (as he often did), I didn't really see it. (A note on those "underdeveloped" or seemingly random appearances: the inclusion of these one-and-done characters often lends a sense of true history to Tolkien's fantastical realm.). Turin has to, I think, go down as one of Tolkien's most well-developed and complex characters in all his legendarium. I needn't even mention that he is tragically flawed, but his constant struggle with his intentions over his outcomes is fascinating to see unfold. Actually, many characters in the story possess ambivalence. I was particularly impacted by the ultimate cowardice of Dorlas, the great orc-slayer, in the final chapters. A turn-around I'd never expected, but it echoes emotional realism. Overall, there exist shades of grey here to a degree that the classic LOTR doesn't match.

--A few things on the actual plot: I quite liked the idea that Turin, seemingly destined to be a great leader among men, fell to a live of wandering among various groups of clans and outlaws. That the wielder of the dreaded Black Sword remained in mystery for so long was very intriguing. Oh, here's something of note: After coming off the first 3/4 of the Sil, Thingol was portrayed as much gentler and mellower than the grumpy elitist in the Silmarillion. I quited liked the change actually; was he this way in the Narn as well?

--Alan Lee's artwork is absolutely gorgeous.

--I can clearly see how this book might be difficult for Joe Somebody fresh off LOTR wanting the next Tolkien fix. In fact, my appreciation for the work was increased exponentially by my familiarity with the Sil. I know that the intro covers many of the major events, but I imagine it would be information overload for many unsuspecting readers.

--I have a few crticisms. For one, it is too short. Can't really lay the blame on anyone for that because it obviously wasn't completed during Tolkien's lifetime, but some of the most pivotal events suffer from its brevity, notably some of the battle sequences (esp. Nargothrond, which says that the elves go into battle and are defeated in about a paragraph). The death of Beleg was also too short, but I still felt its impact due to Turin's demeanor afterward.

--Also, some of the passages seemed a bit...off to me. I was just slightly put off by the overused technique of combining five, six clauses into a single sentence. ____, and _____, and ____; and ____ ....etc. And some of the dialogue seemed strangely structured with awkward pauses and questionable syntax. Maybe this is just me though...I'd be very interested to hear if anyone else had the same feeling. In the end, though, these complaints are but minor quibbles in an overall outstanding work. I suspect some of my reactions to the dialogue was due to the overall "newness" of the thing, not knowing what to expect. And there were also some classic exchanges to make up for the awkward. I'd like to re-read the book sometime just to see how it feels the second time around, but...

--...after fully indulging one of Tolkien's "Great Tales", I am panged with hunger for feature-length versions of the others. Of course, that led to great sadness when I realized that these wonderful stories never came to fruition. What I'm really dying for is some Tuor, a real hero to offset the antiheroic qualities of the memorable Turin. Luckily I've got a fresh Unfinished Tales to devour, though I hate to imagine the disappointment when the tale cuts off abruptly at Gondolin. Oh well, I'm going for it anyway :-) . That, combined with the Sil version of Earendil's voyage should be enough to uplift and counter the utter despair of The Children of Hurin.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to add this. Gurthang speaking to Turin before death, and what it says, is one of the creepiest, most chilling things I've read:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Hail Gurthang! No lord or loyalty dost thou know, save the hand that wieldeth thee. From no blood wilt thou shrink. Wilt thou take Turin Turambar, wilt thou slay me swiftly?'

And from the blade rang a cold voice in answer: 'Yea, I will drink thy blood gladly, that so I may forget the blood of Beleg my master, and the blood of Brandir slain unjustly. I will slay thee swiftly.'

http://www.projo.com/books/content/B...NQ.a6eb63.html

http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/stor...=lifebookshelf

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/revie...067733,00.html

This is a criticism I've come across in a few reviews, but I'm not sure I see it. Btw, this is not a criticism of you - I think your review is very insightful.

Point being, there are many historical novels which throw names, places & events at the reader with little or no explanation. First time I read War & Peace I knew nothing about 19th century Russia, very little about Napoleon & was more than a little confused by the geography of the story. I suppose that's the case with most readers.

Most of the critics who have attacked CoH for being full of places & characters with strange names, given without full explanation or background history, would not make the same attack on Tolstoy, Homer or Cervantes - or even Dickens or Austen - for fear of being labeled ignorant. However, it seems that its fine to attack Tolkien's work in this way. I doubt they'd even level such an attack on Philip Pullman. Its another rock to throw at Tolkien - 'Don't bother with this one - you won't understand it. Of course, if you don't understand Tolstoy or Homer, its because you're dumb, but with Tolkien its because he's a bad writer.....'

I always heave a sigh when I see the headline "hobbit-forming". Particularly over reviews of CoH which doesn't *have* any hobbits.

The hard copy of the Observer review, which I have here on my breakfast table, has a big picture of the Professor sitting on a large clump of tree roots, with the caption, "JRR Tolkien in 1999." :rolleyes:

Heh...thanks. :)

You bring up a good point, really. I won't try to defend the literary "elites" because I too believe that Tolkien is often held to a double standard. I would hope that critics of classic literature would take that into account, but we've seen time and time again that they won't.

The reason the Sil helped me tremendously is that I was already familiar with the characters and even the geography, so that I "got" all of the in-references and had to turn of the map & index in only rare occasions. I believe this set me up for a richer experience because I could roll right through the narrative with greater context and fewer interruptions.

I have no doubt that a newcomer could get through it all unscathed, but I imagine they'd surely have to consult the map and index frequently as many have had to do when first reading the Sil. Personally, I love all of the references to unexplained characters/events, but I still think it might be a struggle for a LOTR fan looking for more, especially when you consider that the introduction covers the names and events of about half the Sil in far fewer pages. Unwitting readers continue their baptism by fire when they hit the geneological first chapter. After that, though, the story picks up significantly and these things become much less of a problem.

I had happened upon that Globe review before seeing davem's link. It seems to take Tolkien's own view of his tales, that they are not translatable into celuloid dreams. Clearly, this is someone who relishes the unique aspects of Tolkien's craft--how very apt to acknowledge this power with the phrase Tolkien old-speak. He knows something about Old English kennings methinks and makes me all the more interested in reading the book.

I suppose another reason why I like the review is that it doesn't try to mince words and excuse Tolkien from the failure of other critics to appreciate his work. For instance, I think Tolkien's "throwing out of names, places and events with little or no explanation" is quite different from most authors' styles--nothing at all like the Tolstoy, Cervantes and Homer that davem mentions--and is a challenge to readers, a deliberate challenge. First of all, said names and places derive from Tolkien's invented languages and don't look or necessarily sound like languages readers are readily familiar with. They are a deliberate way the secondary world is differentiated from the Primary World. If readers don't have the delight in word play, they won't have patience to suss this out. Second, Tolkien's names suggest the nature of historical change of language, something which the novel was not prepared to do in its early forms. (I can't say how this would relate to Homer as I don't know much at all about the intimate use of language he--or the poets--used.) How many other writers took for their subject the effects of linguistic change?

So I don't think it's a double standard as such. I think it's a failure to recognise Tolkien's very rare and unique habits as a writer. Books, they say, create their own readers. How very true in Tolkien's case.

Of course, you must realise I write this not yet having read CoH.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pag...&u_sid=2374428

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/O...ow/1973998.cms

Great review, Maglor - I think both your praise and criticism are more insightful than that of most of 'literary critics' (though I admit this is not saying much).

I think you are probably quite right that the brevity of these sections is a flaw (though I still haven't purchased the book yet, I have had a quick look through it). The sections you point out are precisely the sections that Tolkien had not yet written in full form; only scattered notes and short passages of dialogue exist in the 'Narn' manuscripts for all the events between Turin's coming to Amon Rudh and his return to Dor-lomin after the fall of Nargothrond.

You may be interested to know, though, that a full account of some of these events does exist - though it was written close to thirty years before the 'Narn' and therefore differs from the later story in a few regards. I speak of the old alliterative 'Lay of the Children of Hurin' which can be found in HoMe III, The Lays of Beleriand. You may want to check this out - in particular, the details of Beleg's death and its impact on Turin are dealt with very vividly there - I think it's one of Tolkien's most moving pieces of writing.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/s...ectid=10436820

Good one

Well, thank you. :)


Thanks for the tip! I'm not sure whether you got to check out the appendix or not, but Christopher Tolkien includes a few passages of Tolkien's poetry concerning Nargothrond, and proceeds to explain how the passage (and the story) evolved into the comparatively succint final outcome.

But yes, I am most definitely interested in perusing some of HoME now...that is, after I finish the Silmarillion and the Turin-less portions of Unfinished Tales.

"If someone wanted to torture me with false hope, they'd start a rumour that a lost archive had just been found, deep in the bowels of some obscure university, containing a fully expanded, Lord of the Rings -style version of just one of my favourite chapters: "The Tale of Beren and Luthien", perhaps, or "The Fall of Gondolin" or "The Tale of Turin Turambar"."


^That about sums me up to a 'T' right now. CoH has whetted my appetite in a way that, sadly, cannot be satiated... :(

Most vivid moments for me in CoH -
Nienor/Niniel climbing up the mountain and suddenly coming face to face with Glaurung. Horrible.

Followed closely by the return of Turin to Dorlomin, his meeting with Labadal and Aerin, his violent murderous tantrum in the hall of Brodda.

And Hensher (grumpy Telegraph guy) is right, the reunion of Hurin and Morwen at the grave of their children *is* the most moving thing Tolkien ever wrote. Coming at the end of a complete novel as it does here, it is even more so.

To be frank, since finishing CoH I've felt increasingly annoyed that Tolkien allowed himself to get distracted by the kind of 'speculative' stuff we see in The Athrabeth, Laws & Customs among the Eldar, the 'Myths Transformed', etc. Yes, there's interesting stuff in there, but the thought that by devoting so much time & energy to such a dead end we never got completed versions of the Three Great Tales is a frustrating one - to say the least. I'd willingly lose those works if it meant seeing CoH, The Tale of Gondolin & Beren & Luthien in a completed form.

In fact, I'd go further & say that it was this very tendency to run off at tangents that dissipated his creative talent & meant that he never managed to complete The Sil at all. I honestly feel that if he had managed to complete the First Age Trilogy they would have surpassed LotR & have been the work he was remembered for.