No, I haven't read it. I was a bit too put off by the LOTR to want to go after that one, especially since I was under the impression that JRRT's son actually wrote or completed the thing, based on his father's notes. I like JRRT's handling of language, so without that going for it, I suspected the backstory would be even worse than the LOTR. But perhaps that judgment is undeserved. What did you think of it?
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 ramclaughlin |
Re: Hey, Ra, read me, read me! | #1 | ||
|
Posts: 1455 12/23/03 13:38:35 |
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Matthaeus Flexibilis |
Re: The Silmarillion | #2 | ||
|
Posts: 434 12/23/03 21:02:47 |
Well, it has it's moments, but even most fans of the LOTR whom I know haven't make it through (of course, most of them don't read Chaucer for fun either). The Silmarillion is a collection of stories about Middle Earth before the Third Age (when LOTR takes place), which Tolkien wrote starting in 1917 and continued revising and appending until his death. He submitted it for publication (in a different form than the published work) before he published the Hobbit in the late 1930s, but you are correct that it was his son / literary executor who compiled, edited, and published it after his father's death. Tolkien did write the bulk of it, though.
I found it dull and confusing at parts, but I pressed on. Because I did enjoy The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings (which is what Tolkien called LOTR in "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil and Other Poems"), I found it helpful to better understand the historical references to the Valar, Beren and Luthien (which names are engraved on Professor and Mrs. Tolkien's tombstones), the Numenoreans, etc. I thought you might like it because it is definitely not Freudian. |
|||
|
|
||||
Quick Reply
Replies
|
|
