| Silmarillion Alternative Readings [message #192116] |
So, 25 Dezember 2005 20:34 |
|
I was recently at Borders and almsot purchased the box set of HoME's
"History of the Lord of the Rings", but found that I was much more
interested in the Silmarillion/First Age material. I've opted to start
buying those books instead. As I understand it the published Silmarillion is
an anthology of Tolkiens works on the legends. Does anyone have an
alternative set of readings they could suggest? Works that might not flow
together well overall, but which might contain fleshed out versions of some
of the characters and/or events? I don't own the Unfinished Tales of
Numenor and Middle Earth, nor Unfinished Tales. Should I start there?
Thanks, and happy holidays.
Greg H.
|
|
|
| Re: Silmarillion Alternative Readings [message #192118 ] |
So, 25 Dezember 2005 23:45 |
|
Gregory Hernandez <gregrosa [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
> I was recently at Borders and almsot purchased the box set of HoME's
> "History of the Lord of the Rings", but found that I was much more
> interested in the Silmarillion/First Age material. I've opted to
> start buying those books instead. As I understand it the published
> Silmarillion is an anthology of Tolkiens works on the legends. Does
> anyone have an alternative set of readings they could suggest?
It probably is possible to put together an alternative collection of
Tolkien's First Age writings using HoME and UT stuff, but the big
problem is making the collection internally consistent. That is a big
part of what Christopher Tolkien and Guy Gavriel Kay had to do when
making their collection (which was published as /The Silmarillion/).
Another problem is that it is not always 100% clear from HoME what the
original source materials were, and indeed not all the original source
material was published in HoME.
At the moment, the best thing is probably to read /The Silmarillion/ and
then skim through HoME and stop and read the bits that deal with First
Age material that you think might be interesting. This is not as easy as
it sounds!
> Works that might not flow together well overall, but which might
contain
> fleshed out versions of some of the characters and/or events? I
> don't own the Unfinished Tales of Numenor and Middle Earth, nor
> Unfinished Tales. Should I start there?
Unfinished Tales is short for Unfinished Tales of Numenor and Middle
Earth. They are the same thing. And it is most definitely worth reading.
It is much more readable than most of the HoME material.
The HoME material is pretty varied stuff, and heavily annotated. The UT
stuff is far more readable. Does anyone think that /The Silmarillion/
might have ended up a bit like UT if Tolkien had worked on it a bit
more?
> Thanks, and happy holidays.
You too. Festive greetings to everyone!
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: Silmarillion Alternative Readings [message #192119 ] |
Mo, 26 Dezember 2005 04:38 |
|
Oops I wrote that I didn't have Unfinished Tales of Numenor and Middle
Earth, (twice!) I meant UT and the Book of Lost Tales 1 and 2. I'm
wondering if I should get those books irst instead of going out and getting
the HoME stuff. I suppose I always thousght that it was the HoME volumes
that had the proto-SIlmarillion material.
|
|
|
| Re: Silmarillion Alternative Readings [message #192120 ] |
Mo, 26 Dezember 2005 10:27 |
|
In rec.arts.books.tolkien Gregory Hernandez <gregrosa [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
> Oops I wrote that I didn't have Unfinished Tales of Numenor and Middle
> Earth, (twice!) I meant UT and the Book of Lost Tales 1 and 2. I'm
> wondering if I should get those books irst instead of going out and getting
> the HoME stuff. I suppose I always thousght that it was the HoME volumes
> that had the proto-SIlmarillion material.
"The Book of Lost Tales" is part of HoME. Those are the
first two volumes of HoME and contain proto-Silmarillion material.
Volumes 1-5 and 10-12 of HoME all contain Silmarillion material.
Tolkien spent most of his life working on the Silmarillion and
you can read all sorts of different versions of it in HoME.
Stephen
|
|
|
| Re: Silmarillion Alternative Readings [message #192122 ] |
Mo, 26 Dezember 2005 13:40 |
|
"Christopher Kreuzer" <spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:EiFrf.14717$iz3.8035 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>
> The HoME material is pretty varied stuff, and heavily annotated.
> The UT stuff is far more readable. Does anyone think that /The
> Silmarillion/ might have ended up a bit like UT if Tolkien had
> worked on it a bit more?
The Wanderings of Hurin/Urin were certainly like UT in style. Less
polished though; IMO the best bits of UT are better than anything in
LotR.
--
Cheers, ymt.
|
|
|
| Re: Silmarillion Alternative Readings [message #192123 ] |
Di, 27 Dezember 2005 10:31 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
> Gregory Hernandez <gregrosa [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
> > I was recently at Borders and almsot purchased the box set of HoME's
> > "History of the Lord of the Rings", but found that I was much more
> > interested in the Silmarillion/First Age material. I've opted to
> > start buying those books instead. As I understand it the published
> > Silmarillion is an anthology of Tolkiens works on the legends. Does
> > anyone have an alternative set of readings they could suggest?
>
> It probably is possible to put together an alternative collection of
> Tolkien's First Age writings using HoME and UT stuff, but the big
> problem is making the collection internally consistent.
Why should it be? It's supposed to be a myth. I reject the canonicity
argument. Tolkien busted his butt for no reason trying to pretzel the
Silmarillion into an internally consistent (and ultimately, consistent
with the observed physical real world!) "history" thereby (potentially)
destroying its readability as myth.
> That is a big
> part of what Christopher Tolkien and Guy Gavriel Kay had to do when
> making their collection (which was published as /The Silmarillion/).
> Another problem is that it is not always 100% clear from HoME what the
> original source materials were, and indeed not all the original source
> material was published in HoME.
In reply to the original poster,
I would recommend that he read
Book of Lost Tales (2 books, BOLT 1 and BOLT 2)
And possibly the next two in the HOME series
(Lays of Beleriand,
and, I think, The Shaping of Middle Earth.)
The rest of HOME
(except for a couple intresting later volumes like Morgoth's Ring)
are mostly boring exegesis of the published LOTR, as mentioned by
the original poster.
> The HoME material is pretty varied stuff, and heavily annotated. The UT
> stuff is far more readable. Does anyone think that /The Silmarillion/
> might have ended up a bit like UT if Tolkien had worked on it a bit
> more?
I would actually prefer not. Sure it would have been nice if one or two
LOTR style epics had been fleshed out in his excellent prose novel style
that you see in UT, but then we might not have stuff like BOLT which
I find far more intriguing in terms of alternate retellings and mythical
trappings. It would shrink the Silm considerably to turn it into a
Robert Jordan-style 10-book prose series of internally consistent novels
with all the loose ends removed.
> > Thanks, and happy holidays.
>
> You too. Festive greetings to everyone!
Sure thing! --Brian
|
|
|
| Re: Silmarillion Alternative Readings [message #192124 ] |
Di, 27 Dezember 2005 13:42 |
|
Robinsons <wrob [at] erols.com> wrote:
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>>
>> Gregory Hernandez <gregrosa [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> I was recently at Borders and almsot purchased the box set of HoME's
>>> "History of the Lord of the Rings", but found that I was much more
>>> interested in the Silmarillion/First Age material. I've opted to
>>> start buying those books instead. As I understand it the published
>>> Silmarillion is an anthology of Tolkiens works on the legends. Does
>>> anyone have an alternative set of readings they could suggest?
>>
>> It probably is possible to put together an alternative collection of
>> Tolkien's First Age writings using HoME and UT stuff, but the big
>> problem is making the collection internally consistent.
>
> Why should it be? It's supposed to be a myth. I reject the
> canonicity argument. Tolkien busted his butt for no reason trying to
> pretzel the Silmarillion into an internally consistent (and
> ultimately, consistent with the observed physical real world!)
> "history" thereby (potentially) destroying its readability as myth.
Where do you draw the line? Yes, some "mythological" inconsistency is
probably not a bad thing - or even the inconsistency due to transmission
of historical records (which might be the source of mythological
inconsistency). But the detailed plots in /The Silmarillion/ need to be
internally consistent to a certain extent, and coherent (if not
consistent) on a larger scale. Chronology and names need to be
consistent to avoid confusion.
<snip>
>> The HoME material is pretty varied stuff, and heavily annotated. The
>> UT stuff is far more readable. Does anyone think that /The
>> Silmarillion/ might have ended up a bit like UT if Tolkien had
>> worked on it a bit more?
>
> I would actually prefer not. Sure it would have been nice if one or
> two LOTR style epics had been fleshed out in his excellent prose
> novel style that you see in UT, but then we might not have stuff like
> BOLT which
> I find far more intriguing in terms of alternate retellings and
> mythical trappings. It would shrink the Silm considerably to turn it
> into a Robert Jordan-style 10-book prose series of internally
> consistent novels with all the loose ends removed.
Why not have both! :-)
You could have the overarching, mythological story, as told in /The
Silmarillion/, and then think about the extra, longer stories that could
have been written if Tolkien had done more things in the style of his UT
stories.
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| start with Beren and Luthien [message #192186 ] |
Fr, 30 Dezember 2005 09:45 |
|
Hi Greg,
I'd recommend starting with the Silmarillion, and specifically starting
with the chapter "Of Beren and Luthien". This chapter is at the
very heart of Tolkien's history in many ways. But I believe it
stands magnificently on it's own. After you read it you'll want to
understand what was so dreadfully special about the silmarills, so go
to the chapter about Feanor and the making of the jewels -- and follow
from there until the horrible oaths are taken. (You'll probably want
to jump back to the very beginning to see how Melkor got to be what he
got to be.) .
Unfinished has some beautiful stuff. The other writings have
interesting parts. But Tolkien worked all his life trying to conceive
and get the Silmarillian into shape. Christopher, et al, made a good
attempt to finish as best they could. It's difficult -- it reads
like the old testament -- but it's really wonderful.
best wishes and happy new year!
dave
Gregory Hernandez wrote:
> I was recently at Borders and almsot purchased the box set of HoME's
> "History of the Lord of the Rings", but found that I was much more
> interested in the Silmarillion/First Age material. I've opted to start
> buying those books instead. As I understand it the published Silmarillion is
> an anthology of Tolkiens works on the legends. Does anyone have an
> alternative set of readings they could suggest? Works that might not flow
> together well overall, but which might contain fleshed out versions of some
> of the characters and/or events? I don't own the Unfinished Tales of
> Numenor and Middle Earth, nor Unfinished Tales. Should I start there?
>
> Thanks, and happy holidays.
>
> Greg H.
|
|
|
| Re: start with Beren and Luthien [message #192227 ] |
Mo, 02 Januar 2006 04:09 |
|
<linksong [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135932303.238822.223500 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Greg,
> I'd recommend starting with the Silmarillion, and specifically starting
> with the chapter "Of Beren and Luthien". This chapter is at the
> very heart of Tolkien's history in many ways. But I believe it
> stands magnificently on it's own. After you read it you'll want to
> understand what was so dreadfully special about the silmarills, so go
> to the chapter about Feanor and the making of the jewels -- and follow
> from there until the horrible oaths are taken. (You'll probably want
> to jump back to the very beginning to see how Melkor got to be what he
> got to be.) .
>
> Unfinished has some beautiful stuff. The other writings have
> interesting parts.
SO basically, the SIlmarillion, then Unfinished Tales, then proceed from
there to the HoME in order seems to be the way to go. Right-o. Thanks for
your help.
> best wishes and happy new year!
> dave
You too!
Greg H.
|
|
|
| Re: Silmarillion Alternative Readings [message #192228 ] |
Mo, 02 Januar 2006 04:15 |
|
"Robinsons" <wrob [at] erols.com> wrote: [snip]
> I would recommend that he read
>
> Book of Lost Tales (2 books, BOLT 1 and BOLT 2)
>
> And possibly the next two in the HOME series
>
> (Lays of Beleriand,
>
> and, I think, The Shaping of Middle Earth.)
>
And it seems Unfinished Tales should be read after the Silmarillion. I
think that on my next rereading of Lord of The Rings, THAT would be a good
time to pick up the "History of the LotR" volumes to look at alternate
drafts to see how the story evolved. Thanks!
GRH
|
|
|
| Re: start with Beren and Luthien [message #192230 ] |
Mo, 02 Januar 2006 06:04 |
|
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 03:09:56 UTC, "Gregory Hernandez"
<gregrosa [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
> SO basically, the SIlmarillion, then Unfinished Tales, then proceed from
> there to the HoME in order seems to be the way to go. Right-o. Thanks for
> your help.
>
I've seen suggestions to read the familier parts of UT after LOTR,
then read Simillarion.
--
|
|
|
| Re: start with Beren and Luthien [message #192241 ] |
Mo, 02 Januar 2006 20:25 |
|
Kevin K wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 03:09:56 UTC, "Gregory Hernandez"
> <gregrosa [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> SO basically, the SIlmarillion, then Unfinished Tales, then proceed
>> from there to the HoME in order seems to be the way to go. Right-o.
>> Thanks for your help.
>>
>
> I've seen suggestions to read the familier parts of UT after LOTR,
> then read Simillarion.
Yes, I recommend this route starting with "The History of Galadriel and
Celeborn". I find it particularly fun to turn to "The Quest of Erebor"
after reading LOTR. Here we find Gandalf with the four Hobbits and Gimli
in Minas Tirith after the coronation of Aragorn, explaining his thoughts
and actions leading up to the events recorded in "The Hobbit".
--
Bill
"Wise fool"
Gandalf, THE TWO TOWERS
-- The Wise will remove 'se' to reply; the Foolish will not--
|
|
|
| Re: start with Beren and Luthien [message #196851 ] |
Di, 03 Januar 2006 16:00 |
|
"Bill O'Meally" [snip]
> I find it particularly fun to turn to "The Quest of Erebor" after reading
> LOTR. Here we find Gandalf with the four Hobbits and Gimli in Minas Tirith
> after the coronation of Aragorn, explaining his thoughts and actions
> leading up to the events recorded in "The Hobbit".
>
Yes, I read parts of the "Quest" last Christmas and thought it was a perfect
lead-in to the Hobbit. If Peter Jackson ever does an adaptatiopn of Hobbit,
that would be a great way for him to begin.
GRH
|
|
|
