Christopher Tolkien to finish lost Middle Earth novel

[Maglor]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Maglor:

This is a quote from an interview with Christopher's son Adam linked by Cof7A in post 36 of this thread . So nothing much new to those who have read HoME but newly presented as an entity.. but the article is well worth reading...

Wow...sorry it took so long to respond to this. And then the thread closed, but it's back now, so...

I did read the interview mentioned (it was a good one too) and I did see the quote that you posted, that it is essentially a completed puzzle more than a fresh retelling.

But this quote (from the same article)...

"Many parts of the text will be - if not identical - recognizable to the knowledgeable reader, but there are also pieces that have never appeared before." (emphasis mine)

...gave me the impression that there will be *some* new material, even if it is minimal. I agree with what everyone has said already, that it's basically the same story in the most complete sense, but I still think we may be treated to a little new material, those nothing so large as to alter the plot significantly. Just minor touches, I'm guessing.

But we'll find out soon, won't we?

[Lalwendë]

Children of Hurin is now Number 3 in the Amazon.co.uk bestseller list! Just behind Harry Potter!

[Lalwendë]

Live near Cambridge?

Blackwells Events

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Sorry to hark back to conversation past, but I've noticed that comments on that Sunday Times article have been posted by Michael Drout and Verlyn Flieger. It's a shame that Tom Shippey didn't join them, but you can't have the opinion of every professor in the world on one article.

I think that their comments bear careful reading. The Sunday Times reviewer, as is becoming all too common with that organ, has done just enough research to appear knowledgeable, but not enough to provide an accurate idea of his subject. Less forgivably, he spends half the article commenting on the literary failings of LR without reference to the book he's supposedly reviewing. This is as good an example as you'll get of an apology to the in-crowd for liking something that's out: Appleyard doesn't want to lose his grown-up, serious-reviewer credentials by approving something written by Tolkien, who rather tautologically wrote fairy-tales about Elves. Incidentally, I'm not sure that Hugo Dyson would have published his opinion in quite those terms, and I'm reasonably sure that he wouldn't have been entirely happy to see his words in a Times review. The deleted expletive descends to the coarse prudery so beloved of our dear scarlet press, and so symptomatic of the provincial, petit-bourgeois mentality that self-styled intellectuals take such great pains to renounce.

The Wagnerian reference is another giveaway: Wagner's is a name that automatically implies that those who invoke him are intellectuals who understand music. As is often the case, though, Appleyard's invocation of Wagner reveals a lack of understanding of both the composer and Tolkien, not to mention the real relationship between their works. I expect that Wagner here is used as shorthand for an operatic style of presentation (which is also the epic style of presentation, which predates opera) unless the reviewer is so badly informed as to think that Wagner actually invented those stories himself. All in all, it confirms my general impression that newspaper literary reviews tell one more about the reviewer than the work reviewed, which renders them useless save as a beginner's guide to being a pretentious bore.

Anyway, since better people than I have pointed out the deficiencies of that article there remains little more for me to say than that Michael Drout promises to post on his site his own critique of Tolkien's style, which, since M.D. actually knows what he's talking about, should be worth a look. This pointless babble from News International I can do without: what isn't obvious or derivative in it is wrong.

Originally Posted by Neithan Tol Turambar

I do not read ANY of CT's middle Earth history because much of that material was rejected by Tolkien himself as it did not entirely harmonize with his inner vision.

There's no easy way to say this, but that rules out reading The Silmarillion as well. CRT put that together from the very material that yielded The History of Middle-earth, even writing some passages himself. There is no pure vision of the Silmarillion material endorsed by JRRT, and even what he rejected can only be inferred from his later revisions. Some parts of the HME were at one time or another under consideration by publishers; some of it had already been published; some of it is taken from lectures that Tolkien delivered annually to students. The old Fall of Gondolin was probably more publicised before 1977 than anything about Hurin, since it was read to the Oxford essay club (strictly speaking, a forum for academic papers) by its author. It's more complicated than Tolkien rejecting something and CRT publishing it later; rather JRRT left behind a lot of drafts, many of them incomplete, and little or no indication of what he wanted to retain or reject. Yes, the LR material in volumes 6-9 was definitely never intended to see the light of day, but even that is a stage in the evolution of a grand idea that never fully emerged. Part of the reason for that was that there simply wasn't a single inner vision, rather there were many, each of which informed particular stories or phases of development. The picture will never be complete, but that's no reason not to appreciate each fragment on its own terms, since each has value of itself. Moreover, since JRRT specifically appointed CRT to publish, withhold or destroy his unpublished works at his own discretion, we might regard JRRT's approval as given to all of the posthumous publications. I don't say that this is definitely the case, but it's one way of looking at things; in fact, all that I can say about this with any certainty is that HME contains most of Tolkien's best writing, both verse and prose; make of that what you will. With any luck The Children of Hurin will give a glimpse of that to readers who would never get through the History.

As for asking what Tolkien said, I consider it the first and most important step to finding a meaning: unless you know exactly what was said you can't hope to interpret what was meant. Meaning is an elusive enough beast even without the additional cover of misquotation and paraphrase.

On the 17th I'll be doing something; possibly I'll be trying to buy a copy of the new book, but more likely I won't. It isn't going anywhere.

[Lalaith]

Appleyard is quite well-respected as a journalist, though - apart from taking the Murdoch dollar. I was surprised (as I've already mentioned on the Flieger thread - so I also apologise for referring to conversations/links past) how much of this article he'd actually lifted from the original AN Wilson piece in the Telegraph, back in 2001. Wilson did a biography of Lewis and does seem to be a Tolkien fan, albeit a critical one. Here, the expletives are not deleted. Interesting that the Telegraph was less prudish six years ago than the Sunday Times is today. The Wilson piece is much better, but then Wilson, although I often disagree with him, is very smart.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main...w24.xml&page=1

Wow Man! Like, I had to read that twice!
The Silmarillion feels right. Refering to Strider as Trotter feels wrong.
The continuity of the Silmarillion. There's an inter-connectedness and a common diction that is recogonized, a word usage, diction, that is matured, grown more serious and plausible, where at other times in the more detailed, incomplete renditions, which I still find illuminating at points and troubling at others, in the Unfinished and the Lost Tales, there is a change in tone and diction that makes me feel seperated in a way. I cannot verify all my opinions, and I challenge men such as your self to debates, and want to provoke attacks on myself, not because I believe I will always win, but because sometimes, I know I will lose. And that I find that very thought provoking and it compels me to think in new paradigms.
I know about CT and the Silmarillion buddy. You see, I have a bit of a mean-streak. And whatever respect I had for one died with the other.
And: I enjoyed your subtle cheapshots at the end. Very respectful criticism, just perfectly within the bounds of the acceptable. What can I say? I tell myself that it would only be vanity at the most that would compell me to reference books, check indexes, and make perfect qoutes and accurate refrences to base each expostulated supposition, which becomes, in effect, presupposition, thanks either to my virtuous humility, or my scholarly laziness. You decide. Either way, it is the missing scale in me belly. Aim at it my good man, aim at it!
I'm the toughest, smartest, best looking [sweet ol' boy] I ever met, and don't care what anyone says, I know I ain't ever lost a fight in my life!!!!

[lindil]

"I do not read ANY of CT's middle Earth history because much of that material was rejected by Tolkien himself as it did not entirely harmonize with his inner vision."

Newsflash: CJRT edited the Silm. sometimes heavily, sometimes lightly. Some sections [thingols death are pure CJRT fan-fiction]. You want tolkien's 'purest' silmarillion? Better go buy HoME X & XI, as they are:

• JRRT's last revised drafts of the Silm material
• written after the LotR, his craft only got better w/ age
• have much more material than the more 'remote' compressed Pre-LotR summaries CJRT favored in his SilM.

Ultimately every Silmarillion reader who wishes to dive deeper than CJRT's Silmlite has to go to the virtually unedited [in terms of the texts being altered or polished or redacted] volumes of the History.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

I was surprised (as I've already mentioned on the Flieger thread - so I also apologise for referring to conversations/links past) how much of this article he'd actually lifted from the original AN Wilson piece in the Telegraph, back in 2001. Wilson did a biography of Lewis and does seem to be a Tolkien fan, albeit a critical one. Here, the expletives are not deleted. Interesting that the Telegraph was less prudish six years ago than the Sunday Times is today. The Wilson piece is much better, but then Wilson, although I often disagree with him, is very smart.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/mai...nw24.xml&page=1

Quite. I would suspect that, should that little bit of "journalistic appropriation" be pointed out in arenas that care about such things, Mr. Sunday Times flack might find himself in a bit of a tight spot. But then, I'm not thoroughly familiar with the ethics of Murdoch papers, being more familiar with those of the Lord of Black Harbour--no, um, it's Cross Harbour.

Originally Posted by Squatter

This pointless babble from News International I can do without: what isn't obvious or derivative in it is wrong.

But very sadly he's achieved what yellow journalism is all about: he's got highly respected scholars replying to him, attention all over the internet, and fans in an uproar. In the twisted values of rags, he's got his minutes of fame. His article has drawn more readers to the online paper. He's made the advertisers happy. Frankly, he sounds very much like some members of online forums who think that scruffles are what it's all about. And the more we reply to this fellow, the more his puppet masters will crow. Although I commend Squatter for not naming him. Cleverly done!

Laliath, your link here isn't working for me, to the Wilson piece, although I read it when you linked elsewhere.