Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Morthoron
I think CoH is what one gets when writing about a certain subject for one's entire adult life -- in this case 40 some years. The literary style changes as the author's opinions and tastes change, and we are left with a piecemeal history with various points of view, as if different hands added to the chronicles. Actually, I think this variegation adds to the appeal of Middle-earth, giving it that 'authenticity' that sets the story, or series of stories, apart from more mundane fantasies.
CoH may appear unrelentingly cruel and without hope, but this mirrors the principal influences Tolkien was under at the time he formulated the story.
|
Good point.
I don't anyway think Turin's story
is such a "misfit" in the broader context of Tolkien's work as some have suggested. (
The Silmarillion as a whole isn't exactly a laugh-a-minute, and even LotR gets pretty darned grim.)* It seems to me that those getting upset at the prospect that
"the work will be shoved into the world of LOTR to 'make it fit in'; to make sure we maintain the idea of Tolkien writing generic, simple, good-beating-evil fantasy stories" are offering a false dichotomy.
Of course, I just don't think that a story's quality necessarily increases as its message approaches utter hopelessness. It just depends. The story of Children of Hurin is
meant to be a very bleak tragedy. If
all his stuff was like that, it would likely have got downright tedious.
*Yes, I'm aware
davem does apparently see the rest of the
Silm (to say nothing of
LotR!) as pretty much the work of Pollyanna on happy pills, but I don't believe that's a very common complaint.