Is The Children of Hurin better than the Lord of the Rings?

[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.

[Belegorn]

The Children of Húrin is actually a good story. Is it better than LotR, I guess it depends on who you ask.

[NogrodtheGreat]

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

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.

This is an interesting question - I think due to its comparatively shorter length, and its 'editorialized' publication, it hasn't received quite as much attention as it should. I like to think of the Children of Hurin as a nascent masterpiece - there are parts of the novel that are briefer than others, (for example the Outlaws chapters vs the Nargothrond chapters) but in general the story benefits from the terse nature of the writing.

Do I think it is 'better' than the LoTR? I certainly think it is completely different, and (for me at least) evokes not only completely different emotions, but it almost evokes a different kind of world - this isn't one where a kindly Gandalf figure encourages out protagonists to have faith in some higher power.

It's funny, on my last reading of tLoTR, the intimations of higher power and 'providential' guidance actually irritated me, and although I still enjoy reading LoTR, The Children of Hurin offers something new and different - a kind of catharsis and poignancy with relation to human suffering missing from the LoTR.

So I suppose it comes down to taste. But whatever your opinion, I think CoH deserves to be regarded as a central element in Tolkien's canon, and hopefully in time a more nuanced picture of Tolkien's creativity will be developed which also takes into account the less rosy picture of human suffering developed in the Silmarillion, and the Children of Hurin especially.

[Galadriel55]

I like COH, probably better than LOTR, because it's a tragedy. A full-on tragedy. I like those. Mind you, I'm also quite happy with the bittersweet LOTR ending, but it's just not the same. The story just washes away gradually. But COH is so intense in terms of its mood and emotions that it's like igneous rock to LOTR's sedimentary.

I would not say the same for all of The Sil's stories, but The Sil overall also has this quality. Individually, though, I think none of its stories beat COH in this respect.

[Inziladun]

To me, LOTR is the better of the stories.

I had read Unfinished Tales and The Silmarillion long before CoH was released, so I saw (and still consider) CoH to be mainly an amalgam of stories in the two earlier books. Maybe for that reason, CoH didn't impress me in a major way. That's not to say it's a bad book, it just didn't really add to anything in Túrin's tale as I already perceived it.

LOTR is a much more sweeping tale, and I like the "all or nothing" motif: that the Ring must somehow be destroyed for the West to survive.

By contrast, CoH is more the story of a private vendetta that admittedly has a major place in the First Age history, but lacks the high stakes tension of LOTR.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

If it comes to my preferences, I would basically second what Inzil said. I don't care so much for the "high stakes", but having already read everything in the Sil and mainly UT, I was not particularly swept with the tale. It has nice things, nice interesting moments or characters (I really like the part with Forweg, Andróg and co., as well as Mim), but that is still rather episodic stuff.

LotR has, also (by definition) much more characters, therefore many more more interesting characters, and therefore also more characters you can relate to. I can't seriously relate to anyone in CoH, or: I can't relate to Túrin (seriously, I am not Paul Sartre), and all the other characters are quite minor (e.g. Sador I can "like", but I can't relate to him. The closest somebody gets to being "liked" by me is probably Aerin). And even though I have a strong dislike for the main protagonists of all stories just because they are main protagonists, Frodo actually is a person one can relate to, or sympathise with. And of course the others, much more.

LotR I like exactly because it has, apart from being a masterful tale, so many elements, so many points which actually very realistically and spot-on reflect some deeper levels of inter-human relationship or existence in our world, but at the same time inspire our ways of perceiving the world in a different way. I am not going to start here on the big themes like hope or mercy, but that is essential. Also there are so many small sub-stories with similar effects, the tale of Saruman with the pride and fall, the despair of Denethor, and so on. In CoH, I find only the despair and the brave struggle against fate, which is nice and in many ways realistic, but LotR offers very similar picture in, for instance, the tale of the Rohirrim who ride to their death - or so they think, or on the grimmer note in the case of Denethor, who gives up - they all have slightly different approach than Túrin, but the theme is there; and then also, the view is limiting. Túrin's story exactly lacks the hope. I know in many ways it gives it a different perspective, but personally, I prefer the story which offers hope - and not in some "cheap" way where everyone lives happily ever after, but exactly in the very realistic sense that there is always loss, and Saruman might still afflict the Shire, but that there is hope. Which is far more inspiring and uplifting than anything else.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I had read Unfinished Tales and The Silmarillion long before CoH was released, so I saw (and still consider) CoH to be mainly an amalgam of stories in the two earlier books. Maybe for that reason, CoH didn't impress me in a major way. That's not to say it's a bad book, it just didn't really add to anything in Túrin's tale as I already perceived it.

That's interesting. I've read COH before UT, and the Narn in UT had a similar effect on me as COH did on you.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

LotR has, also (by definition) much more characters, therefore many more more interesting characters, and therefore also more characters you can relate to. I can't seriously relate to anyone in CoH, or: I can't relate to Túrin (seriously, I am not Paul Sartre), and all the other characters are quite minor (e.g. Sador I can "like", but I can't relate to him.

I have to admit I don't really understand what the word "relate" means, not only here but in a more general way too. Is it that you don't think you'd have done the same or felt the same? Or that you don't understand the character? Don't like the character? I think that you don't have to feel close to the character to understand him and like him, even though you might disagree with him. I like Turin, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start acting like him. I was going to lead this to something else, but I lost my thought, so I'll just stop rambling...

[demnation]

I love COH, but I'd stake my claim on the side of LOTR. I find it has a more balanced ( and a more nuanced and realistic) view on some of the many complexities of the human condition.

[NogrodtheGreat]

Originally Posted by demnation

I love COH, but I'd stake my claim on the side of LOTR. I find it has a more balanced ( and a more nuanced and realistic) view on some of the many complexities of the human condition.

This is an interesting take - I've often felt the opposite, as thought The Children of Hurin captures the senselessness of human suffering where the Lord of the Rings tends toward "sacralising" it. That is, suffering takes on a meaningful dimension - Frodo suffers because he has been "chosen" to, somehow, to take the ring to Mordor and save Middle-earth.

Turin suffers for several reasons - Morgoth's curse, his own ineptitude, his imperfect knowledge, Glaurung, etc. But even as a child, Turin suffers grief when his sister dies and he is sent away - events over which he has no control as a child. All of this suffering is gratuitous - that is, it doesn't have some 'higher purpose'. It seems to me that this 'kind' of suffering is far more relevant to our sense of how the real world actually works. For me, the story is powerful because it depicts suffering in this morally insignificant way - Turin's 'heroism' lies in his trying to overcome the strictures of the Curse of his own volition, not in the fulfillment of some divine plan.

[Zigûr]

I'm not sure I consider "better" to be useful terminology, personally, because that implies some standard of measurement that just doesn't exist. If it's which I prefer I would have to say The Lord of the Rings in terms of detail alone. I think a world where the narratives of The Silmarillion were as detailed as The Lord of the Rings would be no bad thing though.

I think I would enjoy The Children of Húrin more if it included "The Wanderings of Húrin" as an epilogue to the narrative but that's purely personal preference.

I think if there was any narrative of The Silmarillion I would like to see treated with the same detail it would be The Voyage of Eärendil, because like The Lord of the Rings it deals with the end of an Age.

That being said, as a tragedy and as a part of the larger whole I find The Children of Húrin to be a very intriguing instalment for the very reason that it's not on the same scale as The Lord of the Rings - indeed a more comparable narrative might almost be The Hobbit in terms of its scope, yet radically different in tone, a testament to Professor Tolkien's masterful talents.

[NogrodtheGreat]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I'm not sure I consider "better" to be useful terminology, personally, because that implies some standard of measurement that just doesn't exist. If it's which I prefer I would have to say The Lord of the Rings in terms of detail alone. I think a world where the narratives of The Silmarillion were as detailed as The Lord of the Rings would be no bad thing though.

Well , the notion that aesthetic judgments are completely arbitrary is probably wrong I think. I'm not quite sure I'd go so far as to say some kind of objective (meaning "out in nature") standard for beauty exists - although it certainly seems to be the case that humans have evolved to perceive certain qualities as beautiful non-arbitrarily.

Perhaps a case could be made that either of those two books is "better" because one or the other fulfills more of the criteria humans were 'designed' to perceive as aesthetically pleasing.

Of course, I'm not going to do that here

Doubtless The Lord of the Rings succeeds in questions of detail. By that standard it also beats Cormac McCarthy's the Road (a book similar in many surprising respects to the Children of Hurin), but neither detail nor length make a reading experience worthwhile on their own.

Robert Jordan's fantasy series spans multiple tomes and usually excruciating levels of detail, and yet I find his books far less memorable that the Silmarillion itself, let alone the Lord of the Rings. A tight, compact, exquisitely written work like The Road can leave an impact long after the covers have been shut, and so too, I think, The Children of Hurin.

It is perhaps unusual as a fantasy work because it is so short, but for me its tightness works to its advantage. The compacted levels of drama work to heighten the tension and when it is released, the pressure generates such an overwhelming catharsis.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by NogrodtheGreat

Doubtless The Lord of the Rings succeeds in questions of detail. By that standard it also beats Cormac McCarthy's the Road (a book similar in many surprising respects to the Children of Hurin), but neither detail nor length make a reading experience worthwhile on their own.

Robert Jordan's fantasy series spans multiple tomes and usually excruciating levels of detail, and yet I find his books far less memorable that the Silmarillion itself, let alone the Lord of the Rings. A tight, compact, exquisitely written work like The Road can leave an impact long after the covers have been shut, and so too, I think, The Children of Hurin.

I quite agree. I haven't read The Road but I have read McCarthy's Child of God and I wholeheartedly agree with you that a book does not have to be long (let alone a series! The Wheel of Time is a horrific offender in this regard, what a bore). Indeed some of my favourite novels (The Great Gatsby, All Quiet on the Western Front, etc) are quite brief. But I was purely comparing The Lord of the Rings to The Children of Húrin, not literature in general. I am not classifying "less detail" as "bad" by any margin. Personally I enjoy that particular level of detail which Professor Tolkien employs in The Lord of the Rings, which when you think about it is comparatively brief compared to most of Tolkien's successors/imitators. I think it is heavily dependent on the author. Personally The Lord of the Rings hits the spot for me, but that's just my judgement.

In this regard I believe it is purely a matter of taste. This is not some kind of attack on The Children of Húrin, which I still like a lot, but I really do not believe that one work of art can be certifiably 'better' than another - I would go mad if I did, for so much popular art (literature, films, etc) I absolutely despise. I would think myself an alien. Indeed, that would mean I was "wrong" for preferring The Lord of the Rings, which doesn't make a great deal of sense in my opinion. I don't believe aesthetic standards are completely arbitrary, but I don't think they're objective either.

Regardless, I have only read The Children of Húrin once, so perhaps it just hasn't had the opportunity to work its magic on me the way The Lord of the Rings has.

[blantyr]

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?

[Belegorn]

I personally prefer LotR, as the Rings of Power which can so easily ensnare Men have ensnared me.

[littlemanpoet]

One could put the sense of the original question this way: "is this apple a better apple than that orange is an orange?" One could find that there are standards by which to judge such a comparison. Is it fresher? Is it free of blemishes? Is it sweeter? More sour, as apples and oranges go?

We lump both CoH and LotR into a category of "fantasy", which is just as apt as lumping apples and oranges together as fruit. However, differences are as important as similarities.

LotR was called by its author a Romance and a Faery Story. CoH is, by comparison, Tragedy and Myth. Neither of them is Comedy, obviously.

Both stories achieve their purposes within their categories. LotR is full of color and adventure and has a generally happy ending. It also brings the reader through escape, recovery, and consolation. And, as the author himself said was essential for Faery Story, its happy ending comes about through eucatastrophe. As such, LotR is seminal and groundbreaking. It is as long as it needs to be to tell the story to be told. By comparison, CoH is dark, bold, and cold, as one would expect northern tragic myth to be. It also succeeds within its genre. Is it long and short enough to tell the story to be told? I have read above that some readers think it is not on a par with LotR on this score.

So, to be brusque in a summation, using far too little data, but daring nonetheless, I think it fair to say that LotR succeeds as a romance/faery story better than CoH as a tragic myth. That does not say that CoH was not worth writing or reading! But if one is going to compare them, this seems at least as fair a comparison as any I've read elsewhere.

[Galadriel55]

I don't believe I've said this before, so I will now. I have to give LOTR credit for giving me the interest in Tolkien and fantasy to begin with. If I started out with COH, I would have abandoned the whole genre. The first time I read Turin's story in The Sil I thought I'm going to be sick with all his mess, and I put off reading COH for a long time. After a while, though, COH started winning over. It is a more "specific" book in terms of its themes and characters, which is probably the reason that it draws a smaller audience, but it's a "louder" book. If I decided to reread some Tolkien and I was given a choice between LOTR and COH, the latter would win hands down.

Once again, though, I have to give LOTR all the credit for bringing me to COH and the rest to begin with. And I guess I am too much a pro-tragedy-book person to deny a good tragedy.

[Pervinca Took]

Rereading the whole of LOTR last year for the first time in about twenty years, I did find its style jarring. I missed the calmness - if that's the word - the smoothness and evenness of The Silmarillion (which it took me many years to grow to love as I do now).

That's The Silmarillion, though. As for the COH ... Turin simply isn't a character I can feel much for, however dreadful his tragedy. To be honest, I do struggle to understand why JRRT devoted so much time to him. Perhaps the notion of being caught up in fate and unable to overcome it ... in a rather more "conventionally" epic way than Frodo is, perhaps ... and it is interesting, in a way, for a main character to be not particularly appealing (I am referring to Turin here - just my personal opinion). Still, I would rather Tolkien had developed some of the other tales further. I know loving a book and appreciating its skill are two different things, but I read COH a few years ago and I can't say I remember much about it, or at least much that differed from versions of Turin's tale that I had already read. I do think memorability is a significant factor in determining the greatness of a piece of literature, even if we are talking about greatness as opposed to personal favourites. I consider Lord of the Flies and 1984 to be both outstanding literature and highly memorable, even though 1984 will never (for me) be a favourite book.

However, looking back, this thread is more about the quality of the stories than that of their relative styles.

No, I don't think any individual story is better than the story of LOTR. The scope of the whole Silmarillion, yes, but not any one story. Fingolfin's story moves me, as does Felagund's, and the whole tragedy of the elves is breathtaking - but no one individual's story moves me as deeply as Frodo's story does ... and that, I suppose, is for me the hallmark of a great tale.

[Galadriel]

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.

That depends, I guess, on how you define 'better'. I don't think that 'darker' is necessarily 'better', though TS has characters that often are more complicated, more 'grey', if you like, than those in LOTR. I think Tolkien's use of language is better in the latter, and, as a story, the scale is not comparable to Children of Hurin. To me, all of Tolkien's stories set in Middle Earth form one, large tale, and while some are perhaps more tedious or less relevant than others, whether some are 'better' than others is quite debatable.

[Morthoron]

No, it is not.

CoH utterly lacks humor, the characters are near demi-god status akin to Greek heroes (nice for tragedies, but not so much for developing well-rounded, human roles), and most of the plot points are lifted from the Kalevala (so a bit short on originality).

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

CoH utterly lacks humor, the characters are near demi-god status akin to Greek heroes (nice for tragedies, but not so much for developing well-rounded, human roles), and the most of the plot points are lifted from the Kalevala (so a bit short on originality).

Hey, that's exactly why I love it! Combine some good Greek tragedy with another mythology and you get the perfect mix.

[malickfan]

In some ways I prefer COH-it feels more like a story (rather than the 'Heroic Romance' of LOTR), the characters aren't the clean cut larger than live heroes of LOTR, and it seems more 'real' in some regards. The combination of tragedy, greed, violence and terror for me make for a more interesting story (not necessarily a better one) and the short length is a bonus (I haven't had the time to read lotr in ages), but I can't really quailfy COH itself as being better-I like all the versions of Turin Turambar's story, though I'm still annoyed The Wanderings of Hurin (or something similar) wasn't included-crosscutting Turin tragedy with his fathers story would have made the story even more epic and tragic in my mind.

Beleg Strongbow is one rather awesome Elf as well.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by malickfan

In some ways I prefer COH-it feels more like a story (rather than the 'Heroic Romance' of LOTR), the characters aren't the clean cut larger than live heroes of LOTR, and it seems more 'real' in some regards. The combination of tragedy, greed, violence and terror for me make for a more interesting story

Are you implying that heroic romances aren't 'stories' in a way that other fictions are?

I don't particularly agree with LOTR's heroes being 'clean cut larger than life'. Take, for instance, Boromir, Frodo (who submitted to the Ring's power, even if it was inevitable), Galadriel (who, despite her strength and apparent holiness was tempted by the Ring), Gollum, etc. May I ask in what regards COH seems more 'real'? A tragedy is not necessarily any more 'real' than a story with a happy or a bittersweet ending (unless you were referring to the mere fact that COH is not of the heroic romance class). Also, the qualities of COH you mentioned are all present in LOTR, and possibly not to a much lesser extent.

And yes, Beleg is awesome.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by malickfan

In some ways I prefer COH-it feels more like a story (rather than the 'Heroic Romance' of LOTR), the characters aren't the clean cut larger than live heroes of LOTR, and it seems more 'real' in some regards. The combination of tragedy, greed, violence and terror for me make for a more interesting story (not necessarily a better one) and the short length is a bonus (I haven't had the time to read lotr in ages), but I can't really quailfy COH itself as being better-I like all the versions of Turin Turambar's story, though I'm still annoyed The Wanderings of Hurin (or something similar) wasn't included-crosscutting Turin tragedy with his fathers story would have made the story even more epic and tragic in my mind.

In my mind, the shortness it not so much of an asset. The length of the book doesn't make that much of a difference. But to read COH you need to have first read The Sil, and before reading that you should probably read LOTR. I have a friend who is gradually becoming a Tolkien fan, but he's a very slow reader. I keep reminding him not to stop after LOTR, but he's taking his time with it, so who knows when he'll get to COH. I agree that the Wanderings of Hurin should have been completed - the story doesn't feel complete without Hurin's death.

What I do like is very intense emotion in both the quality and the conciceness. LOTR is good, but the emotion is scattered over the storyline. In COH, everything is one big emotion (most of it can be summorized with one word: NOOOOOOO!!! ). You have bed moments, but you also have some good moments. Personally, I feel much more joy reading one paragraph of good stuff happening in COH than several chapters of victory in LOTR (not to say that their emotion is monotonious, but the prevailing emotion there). LOTR will in my mind still be more story-based (with emotion, no doubt, but still a story), while COH, a good story, is still an emotion.