Silmarillion

ConversazioniBook talk

Iscriviti a LibraryThing per pubblicare un messaggio.

Silmarillion

Questa conversazione è attualmente segnalata come "addormentata"—l'ultimo messaggio è più vecchio di 90 giorni. Puoi rianimarla postando una risposta.

1DavidBurrows
Apr 22, 2010, 1:57 pm

Anyone else out there read this and think it was Tolkien's best work?

2Nicole_VanK
Apr 22, 2010, 2:02 pm

I've read it. I've even reread it. But I don't think it was Tolkien's best work. Much too much in a couple of pages, and characters remain flat because of that. It has the material to make several books - and I think it would have been better if that's what would have happened.

3beatles1964
Modificato: Apr 22, 2010, 2:33 pm

Yea, I read it a couple of times years ago though for some reason I wasn't able to really able to get into Smith of Wotton Major & Farmer Giles of Ham. I may have to give that book another chance anad see if Iike it now. I would love to read the entire 12 volume series of The History of Middle-Earth.Though I'm missing several volumes from The History of Middle-Earth. I guess it's about time I did a re-read on The Silmarillion. I also have some other books on Middle-Earth plus Humphrey Carter's J.R.R. Tolkien A Biography and The Annotated Hobbit 1973 Edition. I have two copies of The Tolkien Reader

Beatles1964

4RRHowell
Apr 22, 2010, 3:57 pm

Are Smith of Wooton Major and Farmer Giles of Ham part of The Silmarillion? I know I read them in a separate volume, which doesn't mean they weren't also in the Silmarillion. I could be remembering it wrong.

I gave the Silmarillion two tries. Got all the way through it both times, but didn't much care for it. For me, The Fellowship of the Ring trilogy is still the best, though it took years from the time I first started it until I really fell in love with these books.

5beatles1964
Apr 22, 2010, 4:05 pm

No, I think they're totally separate stories and aren't related to one another. Of course, I could be wrong on that account.

Beat;es1964

6Essa
Apr 22, 2010, 5:09 pm

Smith of Wooton Major and Farmer Giles of Ham are wonderful short stories in their own right (among my very favorites actually), and have nothing to do with The Silmarillion or with Middle-Earth. :)

I've read it. I've even reread it. But I don't think it was Tolkien's best work.

Agreed, mainly because, in a very real way, The Silmarillion isn't entirely "Tolkien's work," exactly. It was compiled, edited, and published posthumously, and it's as much Christopher Tolkien (JRR Tolkien's son)'s work, as anything. See, for example, Arda Reconstructed: The Creation of the Published Silmarillion, by Douglas Charles Kane.

This is not to disparage The Silmarillion in any way -- I myself love it, although, like many people, I actually found it difficult and unapproachable the first few times I attempted it. It's a beautiful and majestic collection of stories, but definitely not for everyone.

7MrAndrew
Apr 22, 2010, 9:03 pm

I don't know if it's his best, but it's my favourite. I think it would be my desert island book.

I've heard that a lot too - that it's difficult, unapproachable. I'm not sure why people find it so. I am not a particularly erudite or scholarly reader, but I lapped it up. Maybe it's because i have an affinity for myths and legends.

I also like that it's hobbit-free. Nasty, smelly, sneaking creatures, those hobbittses. We hates them, precious.

8angelikat
Apr 22, 2010, 9:51 pm

'I also like that it's hobbit-free. Nasty, smelly, sneaking creatures, those hobbittses. We hates them, precious.'

I love that! I have to agree with MrAndrew, this isn't the best book but it has everything you need to know about the history of Middle-earth, where the races came from, how they were created and what to expect when you leave the Grey Havens.
And of course it contains the story of Beren and Lúthien, ah amore!

9Vanye
Apr 22, 2010, 10:57 pm

I read The Silmarillion about 5 years ago. On the Tolkien website i belong to one of the members posted a multi-part analysis of it & we discussed it in the online threads for quite some time. Some of the comments were that as it was compiled by his son Christopher from JRRT's notes over 50+ years & many of the story lines in it were either altered or dropped when LotR & The Hobbit were published it is not-technically speaking-JRRT's work:rather it is what Christopher decided to use minus what he left out. The first part of it is like Genesis in the Bible in that it tells the Creation story of Middle-earth. Some of the stories have been told again in expanded version in The Children of Hurin also put together by Christopher. Also the 12 book series The History of Middle-earth includes a huge amount of JRRT's notes, etc all put together again by Christopher. I own it but have not as yet read much of it-though I have read Unfinished Tales & both volumes of Lost Tales. One of the stories in the Sil is The Fall of Gondolin which i would like to see in an expanded version! As to weather it is his best work i'd have to say first that it is what it is-not a book but a collection of story lines, background material, & history of Middle-earth that he created in preparation for writing LotR. So if you are interested in seeing some of Tolkien's preliminary writings about Middle-earth & can stick with it through something that a does not flow like a good cohesive plot ought to-dive in! 8^)

10reading_fox
Apr 23, 2010, 6:18 am

#9"As to weather it is his best work i'd have to say first that it is what it is-not a book but a collection of story lines, background material, & history of Middle-earth that he created in preparation for writing LotR. So if you are interested in seeing some of Tolkien's preliminary writings about Middle-earth & can stick with it through something that a does not flow like a good cohesive plot ought to-dive in! 8^)"

Quoted for truth.

the first time I read the 'sell-a-million' as it's sometimes disparagingly called, I tried to read it as a novel like LoTR. It isn't, and it's very hard to read in that way. As a history or a guide, it contains some fascinating tales, and intriguing fragments, plus lots of revisionist notes which I freely skip over.

11RRHowell
Apr 23, 2010, 10:06 am

It is probably the lack of a cohesive plot that made me not like the Silmarillion. I found it mildly interesting, but unfinished.

With the LoTR, I had read and enjoyed them before, but did not fall in love with them until my husband and I read them out loud to each other (while we were driving and doing chores) shortly after our marriage (and yes, there may have been a romantic haze over the whole process that did not directly relate to Tolkien's literary genius.) The Silmarillion did not work for that kind of performance. At least, not for us.

12ronnyd1
Apr 23, 2010, 10:38 am

I like the book. I've always enjoyed myths and legends and that's pretty much how I see this, and love it from that angle. I am also sometimes aware of a certain fantasising about how cool it would have been had Tolkien written full books of some of these tales - Fall of Gondolin definitely, the whole Beren Luthien saga, and so on. Some of these moments were very exciting and it would have been so cool to see them as full works. However I still enjoy it as is.

13Nicole_VanK
Apr 23, 2010, 10:45 am

"Enjoy as is" is right. Tolkien never finished this, and it shows. But I still think it's enjoyable.

14Vanye
Apr 23, 2010, 2:00 pm

I have the 'book-on-tape' or audio version of the Sil & next time i will listen to it rather than reading it again. Just want to see if that enhances the experience for me. 8^)

15DavidBurrows
Modificato: Apr 25, 2010, 3:30 am

It's worth a read, and there is an underlying plot. It is a huge epic covering a much wider span of time than Lord of the Rings. It's about the first Dark Lord stealing the silmarils and the elves swearing to get them back at all cost. The part when the elves first step into middle earth and the sun rises for the first time is really moving, as is the fall of the different houses. If you struggle with it, read Beren and Luthien. Again it's really moving but it's better again if you understand the background and the turmoil. I also really like Turn Turinbar! He was a great character. I think there was more about him in unfinsihed tales though. I never read any of the other books, Christopher Tolkien was milking it, in my opinion.

I hate to say it, having seen the replies above, but I also liked the Hobbit and am really looking forward to that coming out in film. I can't wait.

16MrAndrew
Apr 24, 2010, 6:45 am

the Silmarils. Melkor stole the Silmarils.

17DavidBurrows
Apr 24, 2010, 12:24 pm

Thanks for the correction. It's been a while since I read this.

18MrAndrew
Apr 24, 2010, 8:04 pm

de nada. I had to grab the book to check the spelling myself.

Time for a re-read!

19ShawnLamb
Apr 27, 2010, 4:33 pm

Frankly, to me, it read like an overly exaggerated book of mythology that just kept plodding along. Even though the descriptions are wonderfully written and poetic, I had difficultly associating with the numerous characters on any personal level.

At least with The Hobbit and LoTR, you can narrow it down to a few characters and latch onto something to propel interest.

20MrAndrew
Apr 27, 2010, 5:20 pm

I was able to do that with the Sil. It's just that the most interesting characters were the bad guys - Morgoth, Sauron. I even had a soft spot for Ungoliant.

21beatles1964
Apr 30, 2010, 3:20 pm

How would it be IF The Silmarillion, The History of Middle-Earth and Unfinished Tales and Lost Tales were filmed maybe in to a Mini-Series or just a Series of different films? I too can't waint until The Hobbit comes out to the Movie Theaters. I hope it will turn out as good as the LoTR movies and win a bunch of Academy Awards.

Beatles1964

22sidesho
Mar 19, 2011, 9:33 am

Smith of Wooton Major, Farmer Giles of Ham and Leaf by Niggle are not a part of The Silmarillion but The Tales of Tom Bombadil is set in Middle Earth.
He is mentioned in the LOTR (not in the film tho) as not being affected by the Rings.
The poetry is great in parts but never explains his history. He seems to have many skills that are only ever hinted at.
In my opinion Tom is the best part of Tales from the perilous realm for its variety and cleverness of rythmic pattern; i would love to read of Beren /Luthien and Hurins family in its ryhming fashion as i'm sure it would be a lot more visionary.

23nhlsecord
Mar 19, 2011, 9:48 am

I read The Silmarillion many years ago and all I remember from it is that I never knew who was who. I spent most of my time trying to decide how to pronounce the names and so couldn't remember who did what.

I might have this mixed up with some other book - it was a long time ago.

24rocketjk
Feb 12, 2012, 3:25 pm

Hope it's OK to revive this thread. I'm finally reading the Silmarillion now after having read LOTR about 30 years ago and having enjoyed the movies numerous times! I often get stuck watching them late at night whenever the come on cable, and when I finally come to bed I tell my wife, "All our hopes are riding on two little hobbits." That's our code for, "I got stuck watching a LOTR movie on cable again." But I digress . . . I'm enjoying reading the Silmarillion because it's filling in a lot of holes for me in my understanding of what the Lord of the Rings characters were talking about sometimes. Of course, what this means is that I'm going to have to reread the trilogy sooner rather than later while all this is still relatively fresh in my mind.

25Jim53
Feb 12, 2012, 4:44 pm

I've worked my way through different parts of The Silmarillion at different times. There are parts of it that I enjoy, and parts that I appreciate mainly because they illuminate the history of Middle Earth. It leads me to reflect on whether I would work my way through The Silmarillion if it were not for my love of LOTR. I don't think I would come back to it after having tried it a time or two. My willingness to return to it ftom time to time is less a comment on the book itself than a testament to what Prof. T accomplished in LOTR.

Did you know that Guy Kay, most of whose fantasy novels I really like, also assisted with the completion of The Silmarillion?

26rocketjk
Feb 12, 2012, 8:41 pm

"It leads me to reflect on whether I would work my way through The Silmarillion if it were not for my love of LOTR."

That's my take. I think the Silmarillion's real value is mainly as an adjunct to LOTR. But that's still a substantial value.

27DavidBurrows
Giu 23, 2012, 3:49 am

I disagree. I do think it has stand alone value. I was really moved when the elves left Vallor (sp?) and first stepped onto Middle Earth, at the rising of the sun for the first time, with flowers blooming beneath their marching feet. There a real feeling of sadness as each of the great houses are found by Melchor and destroyed. It's a very unusual tale.

28yolana
Giu 23, 2012, 7:59 am

I've always loved the silmarillion. I found that the themes of it are carried through all of works. Particularly the theme that all the evil that Morgoth/Melchor introduced into the Song of the Ainur would be turned into beauty. Speaking of moving parts I think I about cried during the battle of Fingolfin v Morgoth.

29Nicole_VanK
Lug 22, 2012, 10:00 am

Yes, I totally get it. And it isn't as if I really dislike the book. It's just that I feel it's the material for many books crammed into one. Nowadays we have the separate The tale of the children of Húrin - the basic story of which is in the Silmarillion.

Now if only we could only have similar treatments for Beren & Luthien, and for the matter of Gondolin, and for the leaving (expulsion) of the Noldor elves from Valinor, etc. I would love all that.

30Nicole_VanK
Lug 22, 2012, 10:06 am

> 7: I also like that it's hobbit-free. Nasty, smelly, sneaking creatures, those hobbittses. We hates them, precious.

Sorry, I seem to have missed that earlier. Actually there is a short treatment of the "war of the rings" in it too. Well, at least in my 1st edition copy - they may have dropped that in others since it neither adds to the Silmarillion as such, nor to our understanding of The Lord of the Rings.

I can relate to the sentiment though. ;-)

31peredwyth
Ago 16, 2012, 9:38 am

The Silmarillion struck me as a sort of "Bible of the Elves" in the first few chapters - but I was thrilled with Tolkein's creation myth, and the histories of the Elvin kings. It was also fulfilling to be able to read the story of Béren and Luthien (Tinuviel) alluded to by Aragorn in the Lord of the Rings, providing a karmic "bookend" to the story of the Human/Elvin story.

32CGlanovsky
Modificato: Ott 19, 2012, 11:16 am

I think the Silmarillion is--in part--a Bible of the Elves, or like Hesiod's Theogony.

I think it's what Tolkien always intended, to create the foundation for any number of incredible epic stories in which none is necessarily more central. I wouldn't say the Silmarillion fleshes out the Lord of the Rings but that the Lord of the Rings takes advantage of the possibilities offered by the larger mythology.

Ovid's The Metamorphoses, while telling the history of the entire Greco-Roman Cosmology, happens to touch on Odysseus. It's not the place to go into depth on that one of MANY incredible stories, but mentions practically all of them by-and-by. That's more or less what The Silmarillionsets out to do. It's not the same kind of work as the Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit. It has to be read that way.

I always feel like I'm not supposed to think the Silmarillion is the best of his work, but can't help quietly thinking it. I mean, in a sense the rest of it is all just epilogue, footnotes and sequels. Kickass sequels, I should emphasize.

33rocketjk
Modificato: Ott 20, 2012, 5:04 am

Well I don't know that I would feel comfortable conjecturing on what Tolkien intended for the Silmarillion, at least as published, since the book as we have it is actually his son Christopher's compendium selected from many different writings. A reading of the wikipedia entry on the book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silmarillion), and in particular the section Concept and Creation (especially the sub-section Posthumous Publication) provides an idea of what I'm talking about, and is in fact where I got all this info myself. This entry in The Lord of the Rings wiki is largely identical but in some spots adds a touch more information regarding Christopher Tolkien's task and the inherent problems therein: http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/The_Silmarillion

We do know, though, that Tolkien didn't even begin developing the Lord of the Rings until after an early version of the Silmarillion was rejected by his publisher, who asked Tolkien instead for a sequel to the Hobbit.

For me the difference between the Silmarillion and LOTR is that the former is so sweeping in scope, covering so many years and ages and characters in so few pages, relatively speaking, that it rarely slows down to create real characters, real scenes and a real sense of place. The LOTR has much more of all of these, and is therefore for me personally much more satisfying. But that's personal preference only, of course. No facts were harmed in the creation of this paragraph.

34rretzler
Nov 1, 2012, 1:00 pm

I have tried many times to read The Silmarillion. I first read The Hobbit and LOTR over 30 years ago and have read them several times since. I keep thinking that I should enjoy The Silmarillion, but somehow I just cannot.

Don't get me wrong, there are definitely parts of it that I enjoy. I quite enjoy 'Quenta Silmarillion', as well as some/most of 'Akallabeth' and 'Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age'. It's been some time since I've read them so I could be getting this wrong, but I think I liked Quenta because it flowed more like a story and the characters started to be recognizable to me (I could easily see how they tied into LOTR). As for Akallabeth and the Third Age parts, again, although I think they were a little more segmented perhaps than Quenta, it was clear that this was the major action that took place and directly effected events in LOTR. (Again, it's been a while since I read it, so please forgive me if I have it wrong now.)

To me, the first two parts of the book just don't have that flow that a good work of fiction has. The parts read to me more like non-fiction, with a lot of fact thrown in, which makes it dry and boring to me. Once past those parts, then I am pretty okay with the rest of the book.

Perhaps I'll give it one more try before I see The Hobbit movie.

35DavidBurrows
Nov 30, 2012, 12:30 pm

I think it's like Marmite - you either love it or hate it. The reader has to navigate a complicated story of the creation of the world, I think that's tremendous but I can see why people struggle. The Silmarillion is a very dark story. Not much goes right and many of the Elves houses fall because of an oath sworn to recover the Silmarils. The oath even affects the dwarves. As mentioned above it is so many tales crammed into one overarching story. It is majestic in its grandeur and a very sad tale.

I definitely come down on the "love it" side, but respect those that can't get into it. It is worth the effort.

36Fred_R
Nov 30, 2012, 1:03 pm

It took me 3 tries at different stages of life, but I did finally get through it. I'm glad that I did, but I don't harbor much desire to ever revisit it. The Hobbit, LOTR, The Children of Húrin, assorted other stories, and the published letters I'm sure I'll reread at some point. The Silmarillion can stay on the shelf.

37DavidBurrows
Dic 1, 2012, 10:39 am

I think I include Unfinished Tales and Children of Hurin as The Silmarillion. They are certainly part of that tale. It does get confusing as I'm sure Children of Hurin is either in the Silmarillion or in Unfinished Tales. Not sure how one can be understood without the other.