Is The Children of Hurin better than the Lord of the Rings? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

littlemanpoet · 09-26-2013, 10:34 AM

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 · 09-26-2013, 11:09 AM

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 · 09-26-2013, 03:14 PM

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.

09-26-2013, 11:09 AM	#2
Galadriel55 Blossom of Dwimordene Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: The realm of forgotten words Posts: 10,511	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. __________________ You passed from under darkened dome, you enter now the secret land. - Take me to Finrod's fabled home!... ~ Finrod: The Rock Opera

09-26-2013, 03:14 PM	#3
Pervinca Took Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: The Treetops, C/O Great Smials Posts: 5,035	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. __________________ "Sit by the firelight's glow; tell us an old tale we know. Tell of adventures strange and rare; never to change, ever to share! Stories we tell will cast their spell, now and for always." Last edited by Pervinca Took; 09-30-2013 at 06:48 AM.

09-26-2013, 10:34 AM	#1
littlemanpoet Itinerant Songster Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Edge of Faerie Posts: 7,066	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.