![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Dead Serious
|
![]()
One thing that has occurred to me in reading through the recent discourse here, is to what extent it is fair to say that Tolkien always considered CoH as a part of the "The Silmarillion" and not as an independent story. Obviously, I think, you cannot divorce it from the wider Legendarium (and I would consider anyone who attempted such an endeavour to be a fool). At the same time, however, "The Silmarillion", as it stands, is not really a single tale, but a compendium of related tales. It is somewhat like the Bible, in that respect, the Bible being a collection of books (a library) rather than a single book.
It's more complicated than just saying "The Silmarillion" is just a library of tales, however. Like the Bible, there is a single story throughout, and unlike the Bible, it is the work of a single human editor, who was specifically interested in following a specific story. It is worth noting that I am not speaking of "The Silmarillion" here as the 1977 volume published posthumously, and including "The Ainulindalë," "The Valaquenta," etc. Rather, I mean the "Quenta Silmarillion," considered as a single narrative tale. "The Silmarillion," then, considered as a single narrative, is really the story of the Silmarils, the story of the Noldor, the story of the House of Fëanor, and the story of Morgoth. It intersects with the stories of the House of Húrin, of Gondolin/Eärendil, of Beren and Lúthien, and so forth... but these other stories are, for "The Silmarillion" really only chapters, and not fully considered tales in their own right. From the point of view of "The Silmarillion," the real chief characters of "The Lay of Leithian" are Celegorm, Curufin, and Morgoth--they are the continuing characters of the previous chapters, who are now jointly spited by the interloping lovers. From the perspective of "The Silmarillion," Beren and Lúthien only start becoming really important AFTER they have the Silmaril--in other words, when they become entangled in the Doom of the Noldor, and avenge Thingol's killers, and thus set up Doriath for both the creation of the Nauglamír and the revenge of the Sons of Fëanor--and the deaths of Celegorm, Caranthir, and Curufin. What about the love story, however, of the Man and the Elf, and the doomed romance of death and inevitably sundered destinies and the eucatastrophe of Mandos bending Lúthien's doom? This barely plays from the perspective of the main narrative in "The Silmarillion," because it is not the point there. I think this difference of focus is even stronger with CoH, because CoH features even fewer of the main players of "The Silmarillion" story, and is an even more insignificant chapter in that narrative. The Nirnaeth, which is the biggest "Silmarillion" event in CoH is given a separate chapter and treatment in "The Silmarillion," and within the context of the wider work, is not really seen as a part of the story of Húrin so much as of Maedhros. And after that? Well... Nargothrond falls, and Morgoth eventually loses his new prototype weapon, after having proved its effectiveness--and Glaurung will soon be replaced by Ancalagon and the winged dragons anyway, so perhaps it's best that he was put out of his misery by Túrin. It's only once Túrin is dead, and Húrin can then be released, that Morgoth starts getting what he's looking for: the approximate location of Gondolin, the other shoe falling for Thingol having taken the Silmaril. My point is not that CoH--or "The Lay of Leithian," or the Gondolin/Eärendil saga, for that matter--is insignificant in and of itself, nor that "The Silmarillion" can go on without it. No story can go on as if some of its chapters, in which the plot is advanced, were not written. My point, however, is that the emphasis on what is more broadly "important" changes depending on whether one is following the story of the Silmarils in the chapter on Túrin, or whether one is following the tragic tale of the Children of Húrin from beginning to end. In the former, it is crucially important that Nargothrond fall and Húrin be broken to Morgoth's will. In the latter, the emphasis is on Túrin and Nienor, and their own, personal tragedy. Morwen is of very little consequence to "The Silmarillion" narrative--she is too far from the main events to really matter as the source of crucial action--but in CoH, she is at its very heart, and it could not be understood without her. I have one last point before I end, and since my copies of the HoME are boxed away somewhere in my van, I cannot offer any proof of what I am about to say, so bear with the possible misremembering. However... As far as my memory goes, the Fall of Gondolin, the Lay of Leithian, and Turin and the Dragon are the oldest components in the Book of Lost Tales, the first "Silmarillion." "The Book of Lost Tales," by itself, is a more compartmentalised account than the "Quenta Silmarillion," and the focus is much more on the individual tales than one the broader arc. What is more, we really only have these three tales in their later Lost Tales form, and not in the very germ of story-thought in which they were conceived. Knowing the source of "Beren and Tinúviel" in Tolkien's own marriage, and more strongly of "Turin and Glómund" in the Finnish Kallevala, it seems to me entirely possible that these three tales were NOT, in origin, conceived as part of a cohesive whole--possibly part of a related mythology, but that is several steps from the united tale of "The Silmarillion." I think, if I am right here, that this original conception of these tales as independent, and less as part of the cycle, gives them a tenser relationship with the rest of "The Silmarillion" than, say, "The Account of the Sun and Moon." Tolkien continued to work on larger, "independent" accounts of these tales from the 1920s through the 1950s, the same period that saw the formation of "The Silmarillion" largely as we know it. This gives us the abortive tale "Of Tuor and his Coming to Gondolin," the text of CoH as we have it, and poetic accounts of both Túrin and Leithian. In short--if I can be short--there is a back-and-forth between inclusion in "The Silmarillion" and their own stand-alone qualities, which goes back through their whole history of creation, and is, I think, quite deliberate on Tolkien's part. From this, I hardly think it is legitimate to either separate the tales totally from this context, or to attempt to examine them exclusively within this context. Depending on the situation, and the need or the desire, either or both approach is valid.
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |||||
Wisest of the Noldor
|
![]() Quote:
What I've been specifically arguing against is the claim that this particular tale is so radically different from the rest of Tolkien's work that it can only be properly understood out of context... even that it is somehow "wrong" to keep the rest in mind while reading it. Quote:
Quote:
What seems to be the sticking point for you, as far as I can work out, is this: Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo. |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |||
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 95
![]() |
Quote:
I am not claiming that CoH can only be understood "out of context". I'm arguing for a more nuanced understanding of the the context of Tolkien's work in the first place; a wider understanding that encompasses the very different worldview postulated in the Children of Hurin. I'm not saying CoH and LOTR are diametrically opposed, but as Davem has noted in the past, they contain starkly contrasting approaches to the canvass of Middle-earth. In the Mieville thread, Puddleglum posted a quote from the Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth dialogue found in Morgoth's Ring: Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by tumhalad2; 09-05-2010 at 09:48 PM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 95
![]() |
Quote:
Please demonstrate to me, in some textual way, how exactly you think the metaphysics of CoH and LOTR are similar? Or are they similar only in terms of the "larger context"? I don't understand your point. How does the "larger context" make CoH consistent with LOTR, and why should it even be expected to do so? Is it because there really is suffering in both, but in the end good comes of it? Perhaps that is true of LOTR, but it is manifestly not of the story of Turin. No 'good' comes of it at all. So, I want to be clear. -CoH is part of a larger story arc. -It can be read as part of this larger story arc. Of course ![]() -How does this diminish the metaphysical, aesthetic, tonal, and qualitative difference between it and LOTR, whether it is read as part of the Silmarillion or not? Specifically? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | ||
Wisest of the Noldor
|
*sigh* Unfortunately, after the lapse of several months, I no longer have all the arguments posed on this thread at my fingertips, but I'll do my best.
Quote:
Quote:
![]() Anyway, my purpose here was to argue that it is at least equally valid to read it as part of the whole. Furthermore, I was talking about the legendarium as a whole at that point, as I think we all were. If you can't understand my point about context... well, I'm at a loss, because it seems a very simple one to me.
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo. Last edited by Nerwen; 01-18-2011 at 07:37 PM. Reason: fixed quotes |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 95
![]() |
I will roll my eyes if I wish. Thanks.
Apparently I have not been clear enough. I argue that it can be read "out of context" or "in context". Clear? I have never argued it belongs out of the rest of the creation. I argue it contrasts on many points with other aspects of it. Perhaps we agree more than you think. Yes, it can be read in context. Whatever. I don't care, and I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in the story, and whether you read it in context or not, how it contrasts with LOTR in particular. I have not about faced, nor have I contradicted my argument. If you think I really have, show me a quote. Last edited by tumhalad2; 01-18-2011 at 08:30 PM. Reason: more thoughts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |||||
Wisest of the Noldor
|
Quotes? Okay, here you go.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Incidentally, before you get angry– please recall that I stated repeatedly on your "CoH film" thread that I was not interested in starting up this debate again. I'm not– I got bored with it long ago. I replied to you only because you specifically, not to mention rather aggressively, demanded a reply. Now you've had it. Enough. EDIT:X'd with tum's self-edit.
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo. |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 95
![]() |
Quote:
Last edited by tumhalad2; 01-18-2011 at 08:29 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Wisest of the Noldor
|
![]()
tumhalad, please calm down. I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings– and yes, I'll admit I do quite enjoy baiting you.
![]() Anyway, since other people may want to continue the topic, I suggest you delete those last two paragraphs before one of the mods closes the thread. They usually do when things get this heated. ~Nerwen, Internet Bully. ![]() EDIT:X'd with tumhalad again.
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |