It'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 He requested these works be destroyed, unpublished after his death.
To 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.
Christopher 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.
I 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.
I also love the Silmarillion and have no idea why some find it hard to read.
It is so much more epic. Did you find the Balrog in LotR impressive? Imagine a hundred balrogs riding on dragons storming the the elven city Gondolin. You find Sauron an impressive evildoer? He was only the Lieutenant to Morgoth. You can argue that this is just inconsistent unedited early material, but I don't care. ;)
I think I understand why the Silmarillion is so hard to read.
The first time through, it's as has been said, the stories aren't very detailed, they're more like old testament books. You definitely have to use your imagination. Also, more and more of the lore is revealed here as well. And then there are the names. Oh, the names! So many to keep track of!
I think I really started to get the Silmarillion on maybe the third read. After that it gets easier and easier the more you retain of the stories. It is certainly my favorite Tolkien book after probably five reads or so and I find the stories to be really rich and interesting now.
You're right, though, Sauron? But a servant of Morgoth! The stories regarding the Silmarils are my favorite of all of Tolkien's stories, which, of course, span many stories. And don't forget Ungoliant for pure unbridled evil!
It 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.
I 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).
I 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?
I 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.
Part of the problem -- in my opinion -- was that the publisher treated The History of Middle-Earth like a typical fantasy series. Mass market paperback edition, cover art, the works. A different presentation might have made it more clear that it was a scholarly work, not a novel.
Nobody recommended the Silmarillion to me - I bought it when I was a teenager, after reading LotRs. People buy it looking for more material from someone they enjoy reading. (and yes I found it a boring slog)
i'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).
I first read the Silmarillion when I was about 15, and I found it a terrible boring slog. I concluded it was absolutely terrible.
10 years later I came back and read it again. This time I had read more mythology and understood the Silmarillion as a book of mythology. I very much enjoyed it the second time. I think age, experience, and expectations had a lot to do with how I viewed it that second time. It's a totally different book than the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Anyone who isn't expecting that will end up disappointed.
The 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.
It 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.
Tolkien 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.
Also, 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.
These 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.
I 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.
I 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.
I felt a few of the homages in And Another Thing were a little too fanservice-y. Sometimes it seemed like the editor said "we could do with another Adams-style rant in this chapter" but it didn't come as naturally as Adams' would. But yes overall it was a quite enjoyable novel in a similar vein as the originals, and ultimately my opinion came from the same kind of bundle of expectations that leads people to read The Simarillion looking for more narratives.
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.
That 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".
I'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.
The 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.
I 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.
I 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.
What 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?
"I never called Edith Luthien – but she was the source of the story that in time became the chief part of the Silmarillion. It was first conceived in a small woodland glade filled with hemlocks at Roos in Yorkshire (where I was for a brief time in command of an outpost of the Humber Garrison in 1917, and she was able to live with me for a while). In those days her hair was raven, her skin clear, her eyes brighter than you have seen them, and she could sing – and dance. But the story has gone crooked, & I am left, and I cannot plead before the inexorable Mandos."
It's sad that although she was his Muse (at least in the younger days) they did not seem to share any of the lore he created in real life. She was not an intellectual and was not interested, he was a man's man (and also religious).
"I never called Edith Luthien". What a missed opportunity!
> they did not seem to share any of the lore he created in real life. She was not an intellectual and was not interested
Seems odd he was enamoured of her. They were of different religions, she didn't like C.S. Lewis, and didn't fit in with his work buddies wives. Maybe she was hot.
This is awesome as a marketing story. But I think everybody is aware that this is not really a Tolkien book but a summary of his notes written down by his son. I don't know if it's good to really present this in such an unrealistic way.
Given that much of this content has already been published I'm not sure this is the reason. Also the complete draft in this book is different from the one published in the Silmarillion so not sure that it would reset the copyright then?
If I understand it correctly it does include an early complete version of the story and a bunch of drafts and commentary of later drafts. So it is not simply a bunch of summary notes but gives the story of how this story was developed.
Perhaps not something that you would read directly after Lord of The Rings but exciting for those that are interested in learning more about his work and how it developed.
I'm guessing most of the content in this book (except for the Alan Lee illustrations) can be found in the History of Middle-Earth series.
The content is probably something to be exciting about. Just wanted to complain about the marketing choice containing something that is very very likely a lie. A true fan will buy it anyways, and after the LotR movie trilogy and some great computer games at least there should be enough fans to buy it independently of marketing.
The book is a short story compare to the LOTR book trilogy. As a result, the movie cannot be that diverse and fast-pased, so it inevitable becomes boring after a while.
Not much related, but Túrin Turambar is my favorite Tolkien work.
As someone who struggled against a bad environment, I related to Túrin Turambar misadventures a lot and connected to the character much more than any other of the whole Tolkien's ouvre.
My favorite fact about Turin is that despite being the son of a son of the Second Born, and a cursed one at that, for the fire of his spirit and the injustice of his mortal fate alone was he awarded the command of all the host of the West in the prophesied Last Battle.
The little I know about Tolkien sometimes I think if he wanted to his stories to became alive.
Its said he created The Lord of The Rings world to his language be alive. I guess he loved tales. Could he be intend to his work evolve in such way as the tales he studied and taught?
It is a fantasy story about love but still being deeply inspired by Tolkien feelings from his wife. I did not knew about it when was reading and how they (Beren and Lúthien) started loving one another can be a bit fantastic but all their adventure and how they 'are' with themselves feels real and veritable.
Absolutely, it's one of his better stories. But it's not as if Christopher Tolkein has suddenly unearthed new material. He's gone and polished up some work that was published decades ago. The Tolkein literary estate is a money machine -- they've already published pretty much anything Tolkein ever wrote, no matter how disjointed or fragmentary. The tale of Beren and Luthien is well-known and memorable, and all the bits of it are in other books already.
Tolkien's writings have been one of my chief hobbies for years (http://tolkien.slimy.com/), so I've been really curious about what this new book would be and how it would be received. Having read a fair bit about it and skimmed through the 30-ish pages available for preview on Amazon... I'm still not sure. To explain that, I'll start with some background.
The previously available books by Tolkien (many edited by his son Christopher) took different forms: The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are traditional narrative stories; The Silmarillion blurs together the styles of the Bible, a history textbook, and historical fiction; Unfinished Tales is a collection of isolated or incomplete stories and essays along with framing commentary for each; and the twelve History of Middle-earth books are a thoroughly scholarly analysis of the complete textual history of Tolkien's invented world (which happen to include quite a lot of fascinating and enjoyable stories and fragments along the way). Christopher Tolkien has done a really admirable job of sharing his father's broader vision (at his father's request!) with as wide an audience as possible.
When The Children of Húrin appeared (around 10 years ago), it was the first self-contained narrative story about Middle-earth published since Tolkien's death. Most or all of the actual text had been published before (it's a very close match to the first story in Unfinished Tales), but it was framed in a way to be much more accessible: it's quite readable by someone who hasn't read anything beyond The Lord of the Rings, with no Silmarillion necessary. (I wrote a short "bridge" of backstory to help with that, for people intimidated by the book's 15 pages of introductory information: http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/HurinBridge.html) My sense is that this book did a great job of opening some of Tolkien's broader vision to a wider audience. (And people who enjoy it might go on to read Unfinished Tales or The Silmarillion with a bit more interest.)
From what I can tell so far, Beren and Lúthien is a very different beast. It's not a single, coherent narrative, but rather a focused "slice" of textual history from throughout the whole History of Middle-earth series. The style of Christopher Tolkien's commentary seems to be more conversational and less scholarly, but it starts with the earliest version of the story (which feels very foreign to readers of The Silmarillion) and talks through its stages of evolution, evidently including its lengthy rendition as an epic poem.
So I'm not really sure what audience this is for. My sense is that it's written to be accessible to people who have only read The Lord of the Rings, and it tells what is perhaps the most central story of the First Age of Middle-earth. That's very appealing! But the way in which it's presented here means that it will primarily be enjoyable to people who have a fair amount of interest in Tolkien's writing process and in keeping track of the many, many shifting names and plot lines in the story as it evolved over five decades or so. (And how many people with that interest haven't already read all of this material in its full context in the History of Middle-earth books anyway?) Maybe it can serve a useful role as a bridge between the Silmarillion/Unfinished Tales reading experience and the History of Middle-earth reading experience? Or maybe there really is a community of textual history fans who don't have the patience or interest to read a book like The Silmarillion? I'm very interested to hear what experiences different people have with the book, and I should probably read it myself to get a better sense of what it can be.
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.