Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim
Discuss.
Do you feel The Children of Hurin--or any of the other stories from The Silmarillion--is better than The Lord of the Rings?
I honestly feel like while LOTR is justifiably lauded, most of the stories in The Silmarillion could eat it for breakfast if they had been turned into full length conventional narratives.
|
The short answer is that I enjoyed LOTR far more, reread it far more, etc... That would use, however, a rather subjective definition of 'better'.
Then there is the dictionary definition of "pastiche" -- an artistic work in a style that imitates that of another work, artist, or period. Without being derogatory, CoH and Silmarillion are not conventional narratives, they are pastiches, written in imitation of the old sagas. The whole point of The Silmarillion and other early Tolkien works was to experiment with and enjoy an older obsolete art form.
I am inclined to believe the pastiche element includes themes. In the old days, the lords and warriors caused a great deal of suffering in great part due to their wallowing in pride, anger, greed and other vices. Art imitated life. Feanor might stand as the classic example. Sauron and Melkor aren't much better. I don't particularly enjoy reading about such people. If the tales were rewritten into a modern fantasy novel format, I still wouldn't like reading about such people.
If the Mona Lisa were recreated as a summer blockbuster movie, would it be a better work?