The Silmarillion--- Silent Literary Giant?

[Pippin Skywalker]

Here is a thought that I have been considering a while. The Silmarillion is good...awefully good...it has the feeling and magnificence of myth....almost like a modern Iliad. But why does Silmarillion get a GOOD deal less attention that The Hobbit and LOTR?

While coming up with thoughts on this, allow me to mention my own.


The Silmarillion obviously wasn't finished. It's current form is the editing together of texts by Christopher Tolkien. There fore the work has more of an uneven feel unlike some other epic work. Idon't know if this is a factor....or people miss hobbits...who knows....
I wonder how things would have turned out if Tolkien himself had formally sewn it together. Perhaps it would have achieved the fame of Homer's works. Another scenario is that the book is a case where it is not popular now and then it is "discovered" by the large masses and crowned a classic. The novel Moby Dick was not respected when it came out until years later and It's A Wonderful Life was given mediocre reviews when it was released. My point is you NEVER know.

Phew...ok...talk away you jolly hearts!

[Dolenloteiel]

That does give me something to thinkl about. I was originally inspired to read The Silmarillion, because of Entmoot. I'm fairly new, and I knew that if I read it things would be much clearer. I'm still reading it, and I love the book, but your comments really made me think. What if? It may become a classic late in years as The Hobbit boomed in the early nineties (don't quote me) but I think that it is a difficult book for those not dedicated enough to finish it. I believe that it will be a successful book in later years. Thanks for making me think, today.

[markedel]

Actually it sold quite well early on but its structure isn't one that has mass appeal in that it's not a straightforeward story.

[BeardofPants]

Actually, for me anyway, its incompleteness, and the way it is strung together strikes me as a more, hmm, I dunno... "authentic" mythos, I guess is the word, than some other works. The thing about mythology, especially if it is old, is that more often than not, the texts are incomplete. And even though it was not deliberate, I feel its incompleteness allows for a more authentic touch, much in the way that very many ancient aegyptian texts are incomplete. Just my thoughts.

[cassiopeia]

I agree with BoP, because it is not finished, it seems real. When you are reading it, you have remember its not real. And because every detail in the whole mythology is not consistent, it feels real.

I suspect that the Silmarillion is not as well know as the LOTR or the Hobbit is because it is written in a style that can be difficult for people to read. The Hobbit and LOTR are written in the perspective of Hobbits, creatures like us and so we feel more comfortable with it. The Silmarillion is written in a way that is disconnected and distant. I think that the LOTR and the Silmarillion are both excellent books and I can't pick which one is better.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by markedel
Actually it sold quite well early on but its structure isn't one that has mass appeal in that it's not a straightforeward story.

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I suspect that the Silmarillion is not as well know as the LOTR or the Hobbit is because it is written in a style that can be difficult for people to read.

I agree with both, the Sil is tough reading. Even among Tolkien fans the Sil is known as difficult to get through. Personally I love the style of it, and the old-fashioned language, but to people not as dedicated that may be too cumbersome to read.

[Selwythe]

Really, you can only appreciate The Silmarillion only after you have read both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. The latter two are stand-alone adventure epics, whereas Sil is really a book of mythology to complement them, and therefore, all credit naturally goes to them first before Sil.

[Artanis]

Yes, what most people do is read the Hobbit or/and LoTR first, and the Sil afterwards, like I did. And then like me they find they have to re-read LoTR and the Hobbit, because now they understand much more and see a lot of things that happen in those books in a new way.

[crickhollow]

Originally posted by Selwythe
Really, you can only appreciate The Silmarillion only after you have read both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. The latter two are stand-alone adventure epics, whereas Sil is really a book of mythology to complement them, and therefore, all credit naturally goes to them first before Sil.

Right--it doesn't stand alone. The style of narrative in the Hobbit reminds me of far off rainy days that consist of hot chocolate with marshmallows, and stories courtesy of Grandpa or Grandma. Tolkien definately takes a very fatherly tone with his readers. LotR is branching out. It's an adventure tale--one of those books that you're reading when your mom comes in to your room well past midnight to inform you that if you do not shut your light off, there will be dire consequences. (you continue to read with a flashlight, under the covers.)

But the history woven into the books will inspire those with inquisitive minds to find out more about ME. If I had tried to read the Sil first, I would have been lost, no matter how beautiful the language is. LotR lets one feel instinctively the tragidy of the elves, though what that tragidy is isn't clear until you take up the Sil. It deepens your perspective of Middle Earth, but you must already have a perspective in order for it to be deepened.

[Dolenloteiel]

I agree as well. It is a great book. like a giant History book that you would read in a history class. I loved all the different stories and the how they were all connected.

[Rhûnboy]

I agree with a lot of the observations that are made here, and I think there are a couple of attached points that haven't been touched upon.

The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit both have a basically 'Aristotelian' structure... they contain elements that we are taught to look for in literature and that we find attractive (by "we" I mean western culture at large). These include... suspense, characters we come to know and recognize, and thematic unity.

Because the Sil was conceived as a 'myth' it has a somewhat different function. That is, an explanation of natural phenomenon, an account of the good and evil in the world, and a history in general.

This might limit it's popularity in a couple of ways.
First, it is not unprecedented in it's means... the availability of the Iliad and other myths as having an "authentic" source might draw more readers than the Sil.
Second, it isn't going to appeal to a larger audience in the way that a more "conventional" story.

The uniqueness and power of the Sil, of course, is that it is part of an organic whole, that it informs Tolkien's other writings and gives greater depth and density to the world he conceived.

And I'm not writing this to contradict any others' writing, but because these are observations I've made after reading what you've written.

That, and I've had two glasses of wine.

~ Connor