6 ms·
I’m always wary of posthumously published books. I mean, the author didn’t publish them for a reason. Normally that reason is because they were bad. Also, I tr
by grabcocque 9y ago
I’m always wary of posthumously published books. I mean, the author didn’t publish them for a reason. Normally that reason is because they were bad.
Also, I tried to read the Silmarillion once. THAT was a struggle.
Christopher Tolkien calls himself an “editor” but I’m not sure he understands what the word means.
- vlunkr 9y agoIn Tolkeins case, they weren't published simply because they were unfinished.
- vlunkr 9y agoAlso, with The Silmarillion, they tried to add as little content as they could and just fill in gaps between his existing writings. That's why it has such a cut-and-paste feel to it, and I expect this book to be similar. While I think it's good to get as much of the original writing as possible, it would also be interesting to see them pass the stories off to another fantasy writer.
- trm42 9y agoThese new books are just longer versions of the Silmarillion stories. I did read the first one (Children of Hurin, I think) and decided to skip the rest. Especially if you've read the multiple variations of the stories in Christopher Tolkien's History of Middle-Earth series, you'll be really, really familiar with the repetition.
- zipwitch 9y agoTolkien seems to have had a hard time actually finishing things. He would go back to tinker or re-write rather than producing a single final draft. (That's intended only as an observation, not a criticism. I sympathize with the tendency.) So for the stories he really liked (of which Beren and Luthien is certainly one) there's a lot of material. I'd hope for a completed poetic version, but as a life-long Tolkien fan, I'll be buying it regardless.
- sillyquiet 9y agoI love the Silmarillion. It's the Old Testament Bible of an alternate universe. It's not a novel so much as a collection of mythological stories and a narrative history, very much in the style of medieval literature.
- stult 9y agoIt requires a different kind of appreciation than Tolkein's other works. It's more like reading poetry than a novel. You have to focus on the sounds of the names and invented languages and the archaic and mystical feel of the archetypes represented, rather than character or plot.
- namarie 9y agoI disagree completely. I love the characters of Fëanor, of Beren and Lúthien, of Elu Thingol, of Tuor, of Elwing... Also, the plots of the stories hold a lot of the attention (at least for me).
- infimum 9y agoi'm always a bit unhappy with the comparison to the old testament. it think it turns people off unnecessarily. having read both, i reassure everyone that the silmarillion is way less tedious to read than the old testament (even if they're similar in their narrative structure).
- drzaiusapelord 9y agoI don't understand how people can even find the Silmarillion but somehow don't understand what it is. Its just pieced together mythology. Its not some lost LOTR sequel. Its a bit like saying, "So I ran out and bought Infinite Jest. No one told me it was long and ponderous!" Uh, who is recommending these books to these people and why aren't they at least reading the descriptions?
- Steuard 9y agoI used to sometimes see random volumes from the middle of The History of Middle-earth series sitting in airport bookstores. I'd look at that and just feel sorry for anyone who thought "Oh, I loved The Hobbit! I'm looking for something to read on the plane: maybe this book The Shaping of Middle-earth will be fun." Even Unfinished Tales or The Silmarillion could be more or less reasonable there, but this felt like tricking people into buying a specialized third-year college textbook.
- valarauca1 9y agoThe Silmarillion is just a collection of short stories and scribblings. It doesn't have an overal narrative focus. Reading the Silmarilion cover to cover is like reading the Bible cover to cover you won't enjoy it. CT did a good job with Children of Hurin. The more developed stories (Children of Hurin, Beren and Luthien, and The Fall of Grondlin) were going to be stand alone novels with several drafts finished before JRR's death. Having read the Silmarillion you should recognize these stores spanned several chapters and had a clear narrative focus unlike the rest of the slog.
- jacobush 9y agoOr some, like I, DID enjoy reading Silmarillion cover to cover. It felt very "real", much like the Bible. Like a glimpse into a strange past.
- theSpaceOctopus 9y agoI agree, I've read The Silmarillion multiple times. The Bible reference makes sense but I've always thought of it as similar to reading a history book. That's essentially what it is, a history of the beginning and the first 2 ages. Whereas The Hobbit & the trilogy are narrative accounts of a very small portion of the third age.
- malydok 9y agoRead Silmarillion three times, would describe it as mythology. Think Beowulf rather than Bible. Thoroughly enjoyed the world Tolkien created.
- cannam 9y agoI read it as a young teenager while listening repeatedly to one of my few cassette tapes - Beethoven's violin concerto on one side, 5th piano concerto on the other. By the end of the book I was having trouble mentally distinguishing between book and music. The piano concerto in particular still calls to mind the true protagonists in all of Tolkien: mountains, rivers, lakes, forests and plains, rather than people.
- roter 9y agoI too have shied away from posthumously published books. I still haven't read Salmon of Doubt [0] though am a massive fan of Douglas Adams. From what I've read, he was a bit of a perfectionist. Not sure he would have wished its publication. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salmon_of_Doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salmon_of_Doubt
- bshimmin 9y agoI've not read it either, for the same reason. I wish I'd never read "Go Set a Watchman" by Harper Lee - it really was a miserable experience and should simply never have been published, and I don't believe Lee was really in a position to give her consent. I was a huge Tolkien fan as a child and tried to read the Silmarillion when I was about 10, having already read LOTR and The Hobbit multiple times by that age. I think I did finish the Silmarillion, but I found it tedious enough that I didn't look at Tolkien again for quite some years.
- jeff_petersen 9y ago> Not sure he would have wished its publication. The first half of the book is collected published works of his (columns, articles, etc.) including an introduction to P.G. Wodehouse's posthumously published and unfinished Sunset at Blandings. In that introduction he makes it clear how fascinating he thinks it is to see a master at work. I think, based on that, he wouldn't be too upset to see that he got the same treatment. That said, The Salmon of Doubt is very much unfinished and for me isn't the best part of the collection by far. Still worth a try, even if you just don't read that last section.
- roter 9y agoThat is very useful feedback. I may need to revisit it. I read Patrick O'Brian's posthumous and unfinished book, The Final Unfinished Voyage of Jack Aubrey, and it contained O'Brian's final hand-written notes. Truly from a "master at work".
- vidarh 9y agoI read the Salmon of Doubt, but I honestly don't remember much of it. I do remember at the time thinking that it was interesting to read it, and I don't remember any revulsion or finding it particularly bad, but clearly it was not particularly noteworthy either. Then it was not a finished novel. That said, it was not presented as a finished novel either, and included various other biographical bits and pieces, and as a whole I like that it is out there in the form it was put out, which was more of a tribute to Adams than an attempt to sell another Douglas Adams novel. On the other hand, though it is of course quite different from a posthumously released book by the author himself, it is quite relevant given that part of the reason Adams wanted to turn Salmon of Doubt into a Hitchhikers book was that Mostly Harmless was quite bleak (I seem to remember claims he intentionally ended it the way he did to prevent being badgered about another sequel): I quite enjoyed "And Another Thing..." by Eoin Colfer, written as a sixth book in the HHGTG series. I read it with some trepidation, but enjoyed it. It wasn't quite the same of course, but he managed to match the style surprisingly well, and it did give the series a much more upbeat ending. I think both are examples that it is possible to do post-humous releases both of the authors own work and sequels without it going badly. I think that very much boils down to marketing and readers, though. If you read either with the expectation that they represent Adams at his prime, then you're set for a disappointment. If you see them as more material for the specially interested, then to me at least they were worthwhile.
- comstock 9y agoIt's a not unreasonable point of view. But it's worth noting that if this were the case we'd be deprived of almost all of Kafka's work, including The Trial. He requested these works be destroyed, unpublished after his death. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Kafka https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Kafka
- Nelson69 9y agoGive Roverandom a try, I thought it turned out pretty good.
- douche 9y agoThe Silmarillion might be Tolkien's best work.
- KSS42 9y agoBut which Tolkien? ;)
- empath75 9y agoIf you're the kind of person that runs dungeons and dragons campaigns, the silmarillion is amazing. As a general fantasy reader, not so much.
- Diederich 9y agoI think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Children_of_H%C3%BArin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Children_of_H%C3%BArin is pretty great. As noted elsewhere, the vast majority of the work in the posthumously published Tolkien material was written by JRR himself.
- abecedarius 9y agoThe latter part of the History of Middle-Earth series goes through drafts of The Lord of the Rings -- e.g. Aragorn started as a hobbit named Trotter. You don't often get to see this much of the work going into a really successful novel. If you're interested in creating things you might find it heartening.
- reedlaw 9y agoIt seems to me that JRR Tolkien had a bigger vision than could be realized in a lifetime and he passed some of that vision on to his son Christopher. That doesn't make Christopher's work equal but it may be what JRR hoped Christopher would do with his unfinished work.
- sizzzzlerz 9y agoAs am I. Maybe that's why I can't finish the last two volumes of Game of Thrones. What? He isn't dead? Then there must be another reason.
- SamWhited 9y agoWhat do you think editor means? Isn't this exactly what an editor normally does after the author dies or abandons a project? Puts the notes and completed sections together, fills in gaps, rearranges and, tweaks for continuity and tone, and publishes?
- andrewl 9y agoTo respond to grabcocque's suggestion that “Christopher Tolkien calls himself an ‘editor’ but I’m not sure he understands what the word means.” Christopher Tolkien knows what the word means. He studied English at Oxford and later became a lecturer and tutor in English Language there. He published Saga of King Heidrek the Wise, which he translated from Icelandic. He was given the Bodley Medal by the Bodleian Library at Oxford University. According to Wikipedia, the medal is awarded to individuals who have made “outstanding contributions...to the worlds of communications and literature” and who have helped the library achieve “the vision of its founder, Sir Thomas Bodley, to be a library not just to Oxford University but also to the world”. That is to say, he’s extremely literate. If he didn’t understand what the word “editor” means he would have looked it up in a dictionary. I’m almost positive he has one.
- novembermike 9y agoChristopher Tolkien is also qualified to fill in the gaps. He was one of the original editors of LOTR and I've heard that he may have been the one typing parts of it. He's essentially a co-creator of Middle Earth, although definitely the lesser party.