Christopher Tolkien to finish lost Middle Earth novel

[davem]

http://www.projo.com/books/content/B...NQ.a6eb63.html

http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/stor...=lifebookshelf

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/revie...067733,00.html

[davem]

Originally Posted by Maglor

--I can clearly see how this book might be difficult for Joe Somebody fresh off LOTR wanting the next Tolkien fix. In fact, my appreciation for the work was increased exponentially by my familiarity with the Sil. I know that the intro covers many of the major events, but I imagine it would be information overload for many unsuspecting readers.

This is a criticism I've come across in a few reviews, but I'm not sure I see it. Btw, this is not a criticism of you - I think your review is very insightful.

Point being, there are many historical novels which throw names, places & events at the reader with little or no explanation. First time I read War & Peace I knew nothing about 19th century Russia, very little about Napoleon & was more than a little confused by the geography of the story. I suppose that's the case with most readers.

Most of the critics who have attacked CoH for being full of places & characters with strange names, given without full explanation or background history, would not make the same attack on Tolstoy, Homer or Cervantes - or even Dickens or Austen - for fear of being labeled ignorant. However, it seems that its fine to attack Tolkien's work in this way. I doubt they'd even level such an attack on Philip Pullman. Its another rock to throw at Tolkien - 'Don't bother with this one - you won't understand it. Of course, if you don't understand Tolstoy or Homer, its because you're dumb, but with Tolkien its because he's a bad writer.....'

[Lalaith]

I always heave a sigh when I see the headline "hobbit-forming". Particularly over reviews of CoH which doesn't *have* any hobbits.

The hard copy of the Observer review, which I have here on my breakfast table, has a big picture of the Professor sitting on a large clump of tree roots, with the caption, "JRR Tolkien in 1999."

[Maglor]

Originally Posted by davem

This is a criticism I've come across in a few reviews, but I'm not sure I see it. Btw, this is not a criticism of you - I think your review is very insightful.

Heh...thanks.

Originally Posted by davem

Point being, there are many historical novels which throw names, places & events at the reader with little or no explanation. First time I read War & Peace I knew nothing about 19th century Russia, very little about Napoleon & was more than a little confused by the geography of the story. I suppose that's the case with most readers.

You bring up a good point, really. I won't try to defend the literary "elites" because I too believe that Tolkien is often held to a double standard. I would hope that critics of classic literature would take that into account, but we've seen time and time again that they won't.

The reason the Sil helped me tremendously is that I was already familiar with the characters and even the geography, so that I "got" all of the in-references and had to turn of the map & index in only rare occasions. I believe this set me up for a richer experience because I could roll right through the narrative with greater context and fewer interruptions.

I have no doubt that a newcomer could get through it all unscathed, but I imagine they'd surely have to consult the map and index frequently as many have had to do when first reading the Sil. Personally, I love all of the references to unexplained characters/events, but I still think it might be a struggle for a LOTR fan looking for more, especially when you consider that the introduction covers the names and events of about half the Sil in far fewer pages. Unwitting readers continue their baptism by fire when they hit the geneological first chapter. After that, though, the story picks up significantly and these things become much less of a problem.

[Bêthberry]

I had happened upon that Globe review before seeing davem's link. It seems to take Tolkien's own view of his tales, that they are not translatable into celuloid dreams. Clearly, this is someone who relishes the unique aspects of Tolkien's craft--how very apt to acknowledge this power with the phrase Tolkien old-speak. He knows something about Old English kennings methinks and makes me all the more interested in reading the book.

I suppose another reason why I like the review is that it doesn't try to mince words and excuse Tolkien from the failure of other critics to appreciate his work. For instance, I think Tolkien's "throwing out of names, places and events with little or no explanation" is quite different from most authors' styles--nothing at all like the Tolstoy, Cervantes and Homer that davem mentions--and is a challenge to readers, a deliberate challenge. First of all, said names and places derive from Tolkien's invented languages and don't look or necessarily sound like languages readers are readily familiar with. They are a deliberate way the secondary world is differentiated from the Primary World. If readers don't have the delight in word play, they won't have patience to suss this out. Second, Tolkien's names suggest the nature of historical change of language, something which the novel was not prepared to do in its early forms. (I can't say how this would relate to Homer as I don't know much at all about the intimate use of language he--or the poets--used.) How many other writers took for their subject the effects of linguistic change?

So I don't think it's a double standard as such. I think it's a failure to recognise Tolkien's very rare and unique habits as a writer. Books, they say, create their own readers. How very true in Tolkien's case.

Of course, you must realise I write this not yet having read CoH.

[davem]

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pag...&u_sid=2374428

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/O...ow/1973998.cms

[davem]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/pr...e_ticket.shtml

[Aiwendil]

Great review, Maglor - I think both your praise and criticism are more insightful than that of most of 'literary critics' (though I admit this is not saying much).

I have a few crticisms. For one, it is too short. Can't really lay the blame on anyone for that because it obviously wasn't completed during Tolkien's lifetime, but some of the most pivotal events suffer from its brevity, notably some of the battle sequences (esp. Nargothrond, which says that the elves go into battle and are defeated in about a paragraph). The death of Beleg was also too short, but I still felt its impact due to Turin's demeanor afterward.

I think you are probably quite right that the brevity of these sections is a flaw (though I still haven't purchased the book yet, I have had a quick look through it). The sections you point out are precisely the sections that Tolkien had not yet written in full form; only scattered notes and short passages of dialogue exist in the 'Narn' manuscripts for all the events between Turin's coming to Amon Rudh and his return to Dor-lomin after the fall of Nargothrond.

You may be interested to know, though, that a full account of some of these events does exist - though it was written close to thirty years before the 'Narn' and therefore differs from the later story in a few regards. I speak of the old alliterative 'Lay of the Children of Hurin' which can be found in HoMe III, The Lays of Beleriand. You may want to check this out - in particular, the details of Beleg's death and its impact on Turin are dealt with very vividly there - I think it's one of Tolkien's most moving pieces of writing.