Why is it so difficult?

[Galadriel55]

Narn is the best emotional part for me.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by The Foreword, Christopher Tolkien

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

Originally Posted by Foreward, CT

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]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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, 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]

Originally Posted by blantyr

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

A Silmarillion for Simpletons? No thanks.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by blantyr

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?

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.