That is the name of the book!Thanks!It was driving me nuts not be able to remember it.Don't get me wrong I do respect him.I just don't think he can be as good as his father.
In fact no writter can!jm
Oh, I agree.
I didn't mean to target what you'd said; I was merely addressing the opinions of several fans of Tolkien. They are too hard on C.R. Tolkien, who (I believe) deserves their respect - I can't help but wonder how many of these supposed "fans" would have given up after seeing the massive amount of writing left behind by good old J.R.R.
B.T.W.: Many try to pin the so-called "hard" readings of The Silmarillion on the editorial intrusions of C.R. Tolkien, but they are mistaken. On comparison of the texts given throughout the H.M.E. series, I'd be willing to say that about 90-95% of what appears in the published work is genuine Tolkien, (not counting the minor stylistic changes introduced by C.R. Tolkien in an effort to make the text more readable or more coherent).
__________________ Sigs are for noobz.
Last edited by The Rover on May 11th, 2007 at 01:26 AM
I know.
I myself prefer the mythic depth of The Silmarillion, but I also believe that the narrative structure of The Lord of the Rings is nearly unmatched in modern literature.
Hye kids read the lord of the rings as part of there book list.That proves that JR Token is one of the best writters out there!Always will be in my book!jm
I can agree on the first point. And yes, LOTR is much easier to read then Sil but it's not unmatched in modern literature, trust me. It is my favourite book as well, but sometimes the narrator talks about stuff you wont get if you aren't very in to Tolkien, especially Return of the king contains lots of stuff that really confuses the reader if you haven't read Sil.
Huh?
Allusions to past events (whether sooth or feigned) is a common device used by authors, although most aren't as deep as were Tolkiens.
Your statement that most of the allusions in L.R. wouldn't make sense to someone who hadn't read The Silmarillion falls somewhat apart after it's made clear that the Appendices which follow R.K. weren't included until the publication of the Second Edition; plus, The Silmarillion wasn't published until nearly thirty-years after L.R., (and it was long uncertain - even in Tolkien's lifetime - whether or not The Silmarillion was going to be published in any form).
So, the simplest way to refute your statement is to say this: The allusions made in L.R. weren't supposed to be fully understood; they were there to create a sense of depth. That Tolkien wanted to published the two works together is a widely known fact, but it became clear after he had finished L.R. that that was an impossibility.
I can understand what you mean is that, because of these allusions, L.R. can be hard to understand, but I take from it the facts surrounding its publication. Plus I love Tolkien, and find most other authors (especially the overrated ones) boring.
__________________ Sigs are for noobz.
Last edited by The Rover on May 14th, 2007 at 01:01 AM
Woha, touched a sore spot i see. Well I really don't have to answer to all this, because you answered it yourself. YES "because of these allusions, L.R. can be hard to understand" is exactly my point.
Of course Tolkien made these allusions to create a dept rather then confuse the reader, the opposite statement would be ridiculous. But I never, ever said that.
I said they sometimes confuse the reader. NOT on purpose. But they do. I have many friends who I had to convince that the books are way better then the films, and they would go "No, it's so hard to read .... the chapters are too long ... what good are those stupid songs for? ... blah" and so on.
As I've said LOTR is my favourite book as well, but i wouldn't call it "Unmatched in modern literature" because I haven't read enough to state that. Maybe you have, but if it was the Swedish Academy would probably have considered giving the Nobel Price to Tolkien posthumously, and I don't think they have.
Anyway opinions are supposed to be different, otherwise this world would be dull and ****ed up
I'm sorry if it seemed like I attacked you - I'm just a nerd who has too much time on my hands.
The only advice I can offer is that you shouldn't take too much stock in my posts - nor those of anyone else, at that. Chances are that we'll never meet, so I don't really care about making an @$$ of myself.
Finally got round to getting this Children of Hurin, and I'm not sure whether I'm glad I bought it or not. In one mind, it's Tolkien, and that for me seals the deal to buy the book anyway, just to carry on with the collection. In the other mind, after reading it, I'm not sure whether I enjoyed it or not.
The Tale of Hurin is interesting no doubt (although out of the events of the Silmarillion I always found this typical shakespearean tragedy a little drab) and some points of the book are fantastic and engaging to read, but others I wished would breeze by a little faster.
I have a love/hate relationship with Tolkien's prose, and this book, out of all his or his son's work, is probably most exemplary of that relationship. Sometimes it really brings about the scale and expanse of Middle Earth, but sometimes, when he isn't writing with that sense of great British whimsy (as in LOTR or the Hobbit) it all feels a little, how can I say it, samey.
Not giving away too much of the story to potential readers who don't already know it, I feel I can only take so many embittered and selfish Elves and Men; the same scenario recurring again and again becomes a bit of a drag.
None the less, it's Tolkien and hopefully they'll be people who read it with a more definite response than mine.
A new book. I'd thought we would never see a new adventure in Middle-earth and yet here it is. The Children of Hurin better be good in the time in took Christ to finish it. I hope the book itself is about 500 pages...just to keep the story going.