Why so little Silmarillion discussion?

On 6 May 2004 21:02:37 -0700, adomplayer.RemoveThis@yahoo.com (Trishia Rose)
wrote:
 > Looking through the archives, I'm a little dismayed by the vast
 >libraries of LoTR discourse, with only a paltry handful of
<snip>
 >I want to see this with an open mind and just try to figure out why I
 >see things so differently than so many others.
 >
Probably because many more people have read and loved the Hobbit and
the LotR. Too many get all hung up on the Ainulindale. "It's Like The
Old Testament!!!!"

Of course I'm weird. I *liked* the Ainulindale. I only thought that
Turin got a bit tedious. ("Oh, Eru! Another day, another tragedy!
Who's next?")

the softrat
"I feel like I'm beating my head against a dead horse."
mailto:softrat@pobox.com
--
"What hoop?" "We'll worry about that once you're in the air."<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Why so little Silmarillion discussion? 

On 6 May 2004 21:02:37 -0700,
Trishia Rose <adomplayer.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
 > Hello,
 >
 > Looking through the archives, I'm a little dismayed by the vast
 > libraries of LoTR discourse, with only a paltry handful of
 > Silmarillion discussion. It seems to me Silm is the far greater
 > masterpiece, even if it is edited and unfinished, and even if it isn't
 > "canonical"....
 >
 > Understand, I love LoTR too, but it's really more of a side plot
 > and grows rather tiresome, while Silm seems to reveal new insights
 > with every reading. I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything,
 > I want to see this with an open mind and just try to figure out why I
 > see things so differently than so many others.

Well, we do discuss HoME quite a bit, and that's largely about the
Silmarillion, just not the published Silmarillion.

--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca.DeleteThis@hotmail.com<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Why so little Silmarillion discussion? 

adomplayer.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com (Trishia Rose) astounded us with:
news:b2e78b75.0405062002.5818f0dd@posting.google.com:

 > Hello,
 >
 > Looking through the archives, I'm a little dismayed by the vast
 > libraries of LoTR discourse, with only a paltry handful of
 > Silmarillion discussion. It seems to me Silm is the far greater
 > masterpiece, even if it is edited and unfinished, and even if it isn't
 > "canonical"....
 >
 > Understand, I love LoTR too, but it's really more of a side plot
 > and grows rather tiresome, while Silm seems to reveal new insights
 > with every reading. I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything,
 > I want to see this with an open mind and just try to figure out why I
 > see things so differently than so many others.
 >
 > Trishia the Tolkien Newbie
 >

Well, after getting my second cataract removed yesterday (I was legally
blind in that eye) I'm all set to read "The Silmarillion". I DID try to
read a borrowed copy a couple of years ago, but got bogged down in it, gave
up and handed the copy back.
So, today, I went to see my surgeon for the post-op follow-up, then onto
the shops for a set of 2.5 dioptre glasses from the Chemist/Drug
Store/Pharmacy (pick your useage), then swung into a bookstore (Angus and
Robertson)and bought "The Silmarillion".






--
Der Artzt ist in...
Geld zuerst
Behandlung zweite<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Why so little Silmarillion discussion? 

"Trishia Rose" <adomplayer.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b2e78b75.0405062002.5818f0dd@posting.google.com...
 > Hello,
 >
 > Looking through the archives, I'm a little dismayed by the vast
 > libraries of LoTR discourse, with only a paltry handful of
 > Silmarillion discussion. It seems to me Silm is the far greater
 > masterpiece, even if it is edited and unfinished, and even if it isn't
 > "canonical"....
 >

I was going to ask you what you like best about it but then I asked myself
and the answer was "pretty much everything".
So maybe What did you like the least is a better question?


My two least favorite chapters are:

Chapter 16
Of Maeglin

I think I didn't like this chapter because it was disturbing to me to read
about Elves that weren't noble and good.
It know the betrayal was nessesary for the fall of Gondolin but it was still
not enjoyable.
Feanor and his sons are also scumbags but they larger than life scumbags
that demand my attention.
(not quite sure how to explain it)

Chapter 21
Of Túrin Turambar

It was interesting (Dragon,talking sword) and tragic at parts but it just
didn't do anything for me.
Maybe because Turin just wasn't a likable character.
And again Mim just didn't fit my idea of a ME dwarf.


Two chapers that were good in there own right but compared to the rest of
the Sil they just didn't float my boat.
IMHO.

T.A.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Why so little Silmarillion discussion? 

"Trishia Rose" <adomplayer DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
 > Looking through the archives, I'm a little dismayed by the vast
 >libraries of LoTR discourse, with only a paltry handful of
 >Silmarillion discussion. It seems to me Silm is the far greater
 >masterpiece, even if it is edited and unfinished, and even if it isn't
 >"canonical"....

I think the number one reason is that _way_ more people have read
LotR than Silm. But if you ignore the movie threads (as I do) then a
respectable percentage is Silm and HoME.

As always, the best way to get discussion of your favorite topic is
to start some! Post an observation or a query, and I bet you'll get
responses.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
Tolkien FAQs: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
FAQ of the Rings: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
Encyclopedia of Arda: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
more FAQs: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Why so little Silmarillion discussion? 

"Doktor Schadenfreude" <Schaden.DeleteThis@freude.de> wrote in
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
 >Well, after getting my second cataract removed yesterday (I was legally
 >blind in that eye) I'm all set to read "The Silmarillion". I DID try to
 >read a borrowed copy a couple of years ago, but got bogged down in it, gave
 >up and handed the copy back.

You might like the recorded version, read by Martin Shaw. Some of
his pronunciations are wobbly -- he can't decide how to accent
"Ilúvatar", for instance -- but generally I like the reading. And it
may be easier on eyes recovering from surgery.

Have your remote control handy while listening. I find my mind
wanders for a few seconds, and before I know it I've missed a few
crucial sentences. (They're all crucial. So I have to replay
that bit.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
Tolkien FAQs: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
FAQ of the Rings: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
Encyclopedia of Arda: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
more FAQs: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Why so little Silmarillion discussion? 

Quoth adomplayer.DeleteThis@yahoo.com (Trishia Rose) in article
<b2e78b75.0405062002.5818f0dd.DeleteThis@posting.google.com>:
 > Looking through the archives, I'm a little dismayed by the vast
 > libraries of LoTR discourse, with only a paltry handful of
 > Silmarillion discussion.

There are a lot of reasons for that "imbalance". The first and
biggest reason is that many, many more people have read LotR and _The
Hobbit_ than have read Silm., so that naturally weights discussion in
that direction. Also, those who haven't read Silm. are probably more
likely to have "basic" questions about Middle-earth to ask, and those
questions are often the source of much of our discussion here (even if
we experts sometimes take them in obscure directions ). And in the
past four or five years, interest in LotR in particular has been given
a huge boost by the movies.

Beyond all that, Silmarillion discussion is harder, plain and simple!
The trouble is that here, when someone asks a question about First Age
material, there is a dedicated core of us who will look to HoMe for
answers rather than the published _Silmarillion_. I'd hate to have it
any other way (given the "canonicity" problems with Silm.), but it has
the unfortunate side effect of intimidating or outright sidelining
most of the people here. How can someone feel comfortable discussion
the story of Turin here if they haven't read _Unfinished Tales_? I
don't know what exactly to do about that... except maybe encourage
everyone to read UT! (No, really! It's fantastic!) And the
trouble is that once you _have_ read UT and all the crucial parts of
HoMe, you're a lot less likely to be the one who asks the questions
that get discussions rolling.

 > It seems to me Silm is the far greater masterpiece, even if it is
 > edited and unfinished, and even if it isn't "canonical"....

I don't know. The history in Silm. is awesome (and I mean that
literally), to be sure, and it certainly represents one of the
greatest acts of "sub-creation" in literature. But there really is
something to be said for the beauty of an actual story with actual
characters like LotR. The scope of LotR is certainly far less vast
than that of Silm., but it does a better job of fleshing out what it
does cover. There are glimpses of that in the expanded stories of
Turin and Tuor in UT, but sadly those will be forever unfinished. And
on another note, as many have pointed out, Silm. necessarily lacks the
sense of great historical depth that gives LotR much of its unique
appeal. Tolkien struggled to find a way to present the First Age
material that would maintain that appeal, but he never really
succeeded.

 > Understand, I love LoTR too, but it's really more of a side plot
 > and grows rather tiresome, while Silm seems to reveal new insights
 > with every reading.

Personally, I find the same thing with LotR.

 > I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, I want to see this
 > with an open mind and just try to figure out why I see things so
 > differently than so many others.

Probably because you're a unique human being with your own tastes and
interests. And I love it! It would be great to have someone bringing
up Silmarillion topics here... and I promise to try not to scare
people away with unnecessary HoMe references (I can't make any
promises about how I'll define "necessary", though... and UT is too
good to avoid ).
    Steuard Jensen<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Why so little Silmarillion discussion? 

Steuard Jensen wrote:

 > Beyond all that, Silmarillion discussion is harder, plain and simple!

It is much more theological and metaphysical than a history/action
storic epic, such as is LOTR.

Bob Kolker<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Why so little Silmarillion discussion? 

I loved the Silmarillion.

Then I got around to reading it.

The narrative structure is... how shall I put this... rather unaccessable.
It tried, then broke, my patience. At around the 80-120 page region.

Still, I am most interested in hearing some examples of 'insights' that the
Silm has revealed to you. =)
 >> Stay informed about: Why so little Silmarillion discussion? 

The American wrote:

<snip>

 > Chapter 21
 > Of Túrin Turambar
 >
 > It was interesting (Dragon,talking sword) and tragic at parts but it
 > just didn't do anything for me.
 > Maybe because Turin just wasn't a likable character.
 > And again Mim just didn't fit my idea of a ME dwarf.

Indeed? 'Turin' (and 'Narn i hin Hurin') are my favorite works of
Tolkien after LotR. For one thing, there's lots of action. True, Turin
isn't necessarily likeable, but I think he's one of Tolkien's most
realistic characters. I've known born (or rather 'self-made') losers
like him in real life. People with real talents who just can't seem to
do anything right. I guess I like the tragedy of the work. Its sort of
operatic in a sense.

FWIW
--
Bill

"Wise fool"
Gandalf, THE TWO TOWERS
-- The Wise will remove 'se' to reply; the Foolish will not--<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Why so little Silmarillion discussion? 

Trishia Rose wrote:
 >
 > It seems to me Silm is the far greater
 > masterpiece, even if it is edited and unfinished, and even if it isn't
 > "canonical"....

LOTR is easier to work with and relate to emotionally.

Silm taught me the importance of myth. It made me
think about how I write myths in my own life,
which ones I want to write, and what to do with them
once I've written them.

In Silm, Tolkien's intellectual ideas and messages are
closer to the surface. In LOTR, they are carried in
the bloodstreams of the characters.

Silm is factually denser. It's easy to have a literary
discussion about LOTR from memory. Before I join in
a discussion of Silm here, I'd better re-read the
relevant chapter. And the relevant chapters of
UT and BOLT 1 and 2. Sometimes I don't have a chance
to prepare my post before the thread has grown stale.

I've told this story before, but since you're a newbie ...
I read LOTR in the late 1960s. When Silm was released,
it was advertised way ahead of time. I was waiting at
my local bookstore and got the first copy out of the box.
I'm glad I did.

Silm had the bigger influence on my life. But I think
I still get more enjoyment out of LOTR.

--
Glenn Holliday holliday.RemoveThis@acm.org<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Why so little Silmarillion discussion? 

The American <a_real_american.DeleteThis@hotspammail.com> wrote:

 > I was going to ask you what you like best about it but then I asked
 > myself and the answer was "pretty much everything".
 > So maybe What did you like the least is a better question?

Nah. 'What you liked best' is the better question.

I like 'Ainulindale', parts of 'Valaquenta' (especially 'Of the
Enemies'), 'Of the Beginning of Days', 'Of the Darkening of Valinor',
'Of the Flight of the Noldor', 'Of the Sindar', 'Of Men', 'Of Beleriand
and its Realms', 'Of the Ruin of Beleriand and the Fall of Fingolfin',
and _all_ the remaining chapters of Quenta Silmarillion, except 'Of Tuor
and the Fall of Gondolin' (too short - should be replaced with a version
from HoME or UT). 'Akallabeth' is wonderful, and 'Of the Rings of Power
and the Third Age' is a nice ending.

Um. That is "pretty much everything" isn't it!

Now as to _why_ I like the Silmarillion, that is a bit more difficult to
say, but if we can talk about 'The Silmarillion' more, without too many
HoME references, then that would be good. Talking about the literary
techniques, rather than the literary history.

My all-time favorite Silmarillion quote is this one:

[In Beleriand still at times rode Orome...]

"and the sound of his horn came down the leagues of the starlight."
(Silm, X)

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Why so little Silmarillion discussion? 

Stan Brown <the_stan_brown.TakeThisOut@fastmail.fm> wrote:

 > You might like the recorded version, read by Martin Shaw. Some of
 > his pronunciations are wobbly -- he can't decide how to accent
 > "Ilúvatar", for instance -- but generally I like the reading.

I like it too. In fact I wrote a review of it back in 1999. I should
collect some of this stuff together so I can point people towards it,
but I'll quote a few bits I wrote back then, some of which are relevant
to your comments.

 > Have your remote control handy while listening. I find my mind
 > wanders for a few seconds, and before I know it I've missed a few
 > crucial sentences. (They're all crucial. So I have to replay
 > that bit.

"Following the story requires the same level of concentration as reading
a book. Without pictures, music, or sound effects, the listener is
compelled to work overtime with his or her imagination in creating a
vivid picture of the unfolding scenes as the storyteller relates them.
Just letting the words flow over you can easily send you to sleep, as
some of the longer descriptive passages meander
past."

"...the understated reading of the text allows the power of Tolkien's
style of writing to shine through."

"This effect is best felt in 'Of the Fall of Numenor'. Here, the
measured tones of a master storyteller unfold the broad brushstrokes of
Numenorean history, from the voyaging of the Edain to Andor, following
Bright Earendil; to the glory of Armenelos in the noon-tide of the
Numenorean realm. The mental pace quickens as the story focuses on the
dark days following Ar-Pharazon's ascension to the throne, and the
waxing of Sauron's power. Tension mounts unbearably as Tolkien's words,
delivered calmly but forcibly by Shaw, build to a climactic finish,
while the epilogue is heartbreakingly beautiful."

"Listening to about an hour every day for two weeks makes the book last
longer than normal..."

"Anyone, though, who has read 'The Silmarillion' will agree that it
cries out to be read aloud..."

"The fact that [Shaw] uses his 'near-normal' voice for Mandos should
give an idea of the overall tone of the storytelling [...] I was very
impressed with the consistency Shaw showed in the pronunciations, the
one exception being Illuvatar, where a slight emphasis on the 'vat' as
opposed to being on the 'u', grew stronger throughout the first tape."

"Overall then, a well packaged and presented audio book, that was a joy
to
listen to, however many times I fell asleep during the Valaquenta and
'Of Beleriand and its Realms'. (Hint: use the map while listening to
this
bit, it really helps!). I hope this review has inspired people to
consider
the different mediums through which a story can be experienced, and
would
thoroughly recommend this audiobook to anyone."

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Why so little Silmarillion discussion?