The Book of Lost Tales Part I: A Readthrough

[Inziladun]

While it's obvious that there are many posters here possessing knowledge of Lost Tales and the HOME series as a whole that is far more exhaustive than my own, which may be a factor, I find that considerations of early vs. later ideas seem to me to cause unnecessary complications.

I have read the HOME volumes dealing with LOTR, and while I did find that knowing some things, such as the fact that Strider, the future King Elessar was in origin a 'wild' Hobbit to be illuminating, I don't feel that the knowledge was of itself much value in aiding my appreciation of the books.

In any work of fiction, and especially one such as LOTR, having such a complexity of mythos which includes not only an imaginary place, but races of beings, and even well-developed languages, that there would be a tide of changing conceptions both during the writing of the books and in considering them after publication, seems only natural.

Christopher Tolkien, I think, is sorely lacking in appreciation from too many Tolkien readers regarding the herculean task in ordering his fathers papers he voluntarily undertook,
J.R.R.T. seems to have been a man who threw very little away, if he considered that there was any possibility that it might have a future use. Since he at least had dreams of publishing his own Silmarillion, the presence of so much related rough-draft and concept material again seems to fit. What he would have done with it if given the time is simply an endlessly debatable, but ultimately unanswerable question.

In the end, CT has brought to light in as closely a finished form as possible The Silmarillion and tale of Túrin Tarambar, as well of many other less polished tidbits found in Unfinished Tales. I find that those 'canonical' works are quite enough for me.

[Tar-Jêx]

I think that because fewer people have read Book of Lost Tales, and the rest of the HOME, that they were not involved in discussion. A lot of the content was also revised at later dates, making the tales less relevant, and only really important for the history of how those tales changed over time.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

I think that because fewer people have read Book of Lost Tales, and the rest of the HOME, that they were not involved in discussion. A lot of the content was also revised at later dates, making the tales less relevant, and only really important for the history of how those tales changed over time.

I know that many people on the Downs have read at least parts of HOME, just a lot of these people are snoring in their barrows. I cannot assign myself to that number; the most I've done was skim through a couple of the LOTR volumes looking for pictures and original manuscripts, and maybe a couple interesting details CT has put in. I wouldn't minds reading BOLT, though, but it has been an issue before because of the, hmm, scarcity of these books in conveniently located libraries, and it's an issue now both because of lack of libraries and lack of time. However, I will try follow the discussion as much as time allows, and maybe chip in a comment or two of what I think of it.

As for the wastepaper question, I rarely throw out my scraps of writing too, even though I know they are scraps. I don't think I'll ever need them, but they don't deserve the garbage can. But I'd be horrified if somebody stole them one day and published them. Heck, I wouldn't even publish things that I like! But then again, I've never written LOTR. I think authors shouldn't write to please fans, and as much as I'm thankful that CT has published my beloved First Age stories, I think that all of the sorting and publishing should be credited to his choice rather than to Tolkien fans clamouring for more.

[Galin]

I have read the HOME volumes dealing with LOTR, and while I did find that knowing some things, such as the fact that Strider, the future King Elessar was in origin a 'wild' Hobbit to be illuminating, I don't feel that the knowledge was of itself much value in aiding my appreciation of the books.

This is a different animal I think (not that you said otherwise): with The Lord of the Rings we have the author's version of it, published for a readership at large. With the Silmarillion we do not; and for those of us who do not accept the constructed versions as canonical then external chronology (revsions and so on), no matter how complicated, or natural as far as revision is to be expected, is important for the construction of our personal legendariums.

My personal Silmarillion can even be shifting, but if I know Tolkien rejected X after Y then it becomes an important factor in my mind.

In any work of fiction, and especially one such as LOTR, having such a complexity of mythos which includes not only an imaginary place, but races of beings, and even well-developed languages, that there would be a tide of changing conceptions both during the writing of the books and in considering them after publication, seems only natural.

Agreed.

But again for myself the notion of (for example) 'I like idea X better than Y' isn't good enough if I know Tolkien only thought of X in 1925 and rejected it twice in 1950 and again in 1968.

I agree we will quite naturally enough find revisions over the years, but I (and I think not only me if not everyone admittedly) also naturally want to know 'the story' too, and the story is not a mountain of sometimes conflicting material written at different times. I think (but could well be wrong) that your choice of the constructed versions as 'canonical' illustrates this natural desire -- I think it's part of why these versions exist actually, to provide what I call the internal experience.

But the mind is nimble

I feel I have the best of both worlds: the readers versions for one kind of experience (the constructed versions), and the information to be able to construct my personal Silmarillion or Children of Hurin based on my decisions (and those based on the texts as presented in HME at least), not Christopher Tolkien's -- but that is not to say that I disagree with a given decision Christopher Tolkien has made, necessarily, but rather to say that I am not constrained by his constraints in any case.


Enjoyment of a work is another matter. I can, and certainly do, enjoy reading a chapter from The Book of Lost Tales for example, and I like or even love some concepts within it -- that said, I yet want to know if we have Tevildo the cat in 1916 or 1968! An arguably silly example here, but in general I think I want the same thing you want, and get out of the constructed Silmarillion... I just want to also construct it, for myself, based on what I think I see Tolkien doing.

I can only construct so much of the Elder Days through the works Tolkien himself published (although maybe that much is more than some might think), but to my mind chronology has weight (when faced with no 'final' version), and it did to Christopher Tolkien too, it's just that he had other competing concerns, as always choosing the 'latest' notion or text doesn't necessarily make for the best internally consistent version, especially if on feels tasked to try to reimain an editor and not a writer.

But it seems clear to me that external chronology had a significant role to play in the making of the constructed Silmarillion and the constructed Children of Hurin. How could it not? It just isn't the only concern.

For example, in my personal Silmarillion or Children of Hurin Turin is wearing the Helm of Hador when he faces Glaurung at Nargothrond. It seems clear enough to Christopher Tolkien that this was going to be the case as far as anyone can tell (again Tolkien can surely change his mind for his own 'published' version, in theory), as opposed to the earlier idea of the Dwarf-mask...

... but I don't have to worry about 'writing it in', or deciding whether I should or not, which decision then creates the further question of what happened to the Helm of Hador later, which Tolkien considered but again did not fully 'flesh out' enough I guess. More writing? What is more 'faithful' to Tolkien, tinkering with his passages to try to work in a later text or idea, or less tinkering using an earlier but obviously rejected idea? I am not JRRT's son and don't have to worry about overstepping any personal choices Christopher Tolkien might have made based, even in part, upon the fact that he is JRRT's son...

...I can imagine Turin is wearing the Helm of Hador at this point based upon Tolkien's existing writings, and for it to be 'true' within the Secondary World I don't have to write anything more than Tolkien did, as no one is reading my 'book' but me.

But I needed Christopher Tolkien's amazing scholarship to arrive there

I'm not sure I necessarily disagree with the choice of the Dwarf-mask, and I'm not sure that's how Christopher Tolkien himself imagines the 'true' details of this encounter within Middle-earth, but he had considerations for writing a book that provides a certain type of experience for the reader...

... considerations that I do not have in any event.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Galin

This is a different animal I think (not that you said otherwise): with The Lord of the Rings we have the author's version of it, published for a readership at large. With the Silmarillion we do not; and for those of us who do not accept the constructed versions as canonical then external chronology (revsions and so on), no matter how complicated, or natural as far as revision is to be expected, is important for the construction of our personal legendariums.

Absolutely--and I would differentiate things even further. Although I get plenty of enjoyment from the scholarly end of things, I think CT is more than wise to warn away people from the HoME--it isn't for everybody.

In addition to the considerations of fleshing out personal canon, which Galin has gone into, which separates the LotR-centric texts (volumes VI-IX) from the Silm-centric texts ("the rest of them"), but I would shade out even more variation in the series, and I would give different reasons for each of them:

1.) Volumes I, II, & III: The Book of Lost Tales and The Lays of Beleriand
2.) Volumes IV, V, X, XI: The evolution of the Silm texts
3.) Volumes VI-IX: The LotR texts, although I would put an asterisk next to Sauron Defeated
4.) Volume XII: The Peoples of Middle-earth, which is a little bit LotR-centric (it gives the evolution of the Appendices) and a little Silm-centric (some of its texts, especially the Shibboleth of Fëanor influenced the choices CT made in the published Silm). To my mind, XII is a companion volume to Unfinished Tales: the leftover bits, not exactly part of the Silm, from the post-LotR years.

I would not readily recommend the entire series to just anyone, but neither would I say "oh, just read all the non-LotR texts; you don't need those." Someone who doesn't care for the Silm would be well-advised to stay clear of categories 1, 3, & 4, but they might really enjoy looking at how the LotR came about.

As for separating out the first three volumes from the rest of the Silm-history, this is at the heart of why I wanted to do a BoLT read-through: I think the first three volumes are birds of a different feather from the others. Part of this is the textual history: "The Silmarillion" is a redaction of the legends, continuously reworked from "The Sketch of Mythology" (published in Vol. IV) through "The Qenta Noldorinwa" (ditto), through "The Quenta Silmarillion" pre-LotR (Vol. V), through the post-LotR revisions (X & XI), whereas the Book of Lost Tales and the Lays in Vol. III are stand-alone entities, complete works of art in themselves--or they would be complete, had Tolkien but finished them.

Thus, although they may be portraits of the same matter, I see The Book of Lost Tales as a complete story and entity worthy of reading in its own right. It isn't just something that should be mined for history-of-the-textual nuggets (though those abound for the reader who wants them), but a piece of art to be read for its own sake--and likewise the Lays in Vol. III. Is Rog and the House of the Hammer canon in Middle-earth? Maybe... maybe not... possibly... probably not... But there's no denying that their destruction in "The Fall of Gondolin" is a tragic read, regardless.

So I list the first three books as a separate category: the three volumes of the HoME that I would recommend for someone looking for Tolkienesque enjoyment.


(Of course, these categories are hardly without bleedthrough. "The Wanderings of Húrin" in XI, or "The Fall of Númenor"--even considered only as a precursor to the Akallabêth--are not solely to be seen as parts of the Silm, and I would not want to suggest that the BoLT isn't foundational to any real understanding of how the Silm came to be--but I think The Book of Lost Tales can be read much differently from the later HoME volumes and is worth pursuing as such.)

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

A

1.) Volumes I, II, & III: The Book of Lost Tales and The Lays of Beleriand
2.) Volumes IV, V, X, XI: The evolution of the Silm texts
3.) Volumes VI-IX: The LotR texts, although I would put an asterisk next to Sauron Defeated
4.) Volume XII: The Peoples of Middle-earth, which is a little bit LotR-centric (it gives the evolution of the Appendices) and a little Silm-centric (some of its texts, especially the Shibboleth of Fëanor influenced the choices CT made in the published Silm). To my mind, XII is a companion volume to Unfinished Tales: the leftover bits, not exactly part of the Silm, from the post-LotR years.

I agree with you that it's hard just to not say, 'Don't read 4-9' because of the relevant information to certain topics in each volume.

I've read the first 5 volumes, and the first 3 are highly recommended. 4 and 5 are less exciting, but still contain a lot of useful information about Middle Earth's origins and Numenor.

[Boromir88]

I always intend to participate in a complete reading and discussion but then I start lagging behind until eventually it's months later. Then it's even more difficult to pick up right in the middle after a lengthy hiatus. It might help that I have not read any of the tales (in full) that are in BoLT. So, I'm glad you started this Form and seeing where it goes.

A couple of points from the Foreward...

It was pointed out by CT an appeal of LoTR is the "glimpses" that you get in the story, providing depth and magic. Inside this epic fantasy tale is glimpses to a faraway past that gives you history and depth. I think to a casual book reader these "glimpses" are an appealing part of the magic, but the more complete tales (when The Silm was published) might break the magic. For me, the magic isn't broken whether it's the "glimpses" in LoTR or the longer versions.

I've always had Sam's perspective that CT brings up in the Foreward "I like that!" The glimpses in LoTR had me thinking "I like that" "I want to know more about that." I think the problem with Sam's perspective though, is you run into a danger of certain "glimpses" not being all that appealing to you. What I mean is, Gondolin, Nargothrond and the fall of Numenor, as glimpses were fascinating and as deeper tales were just as interesting (to me). However, certain parts didn't, like the flight of the Noldor or the silmarils. As glimpses, they're fine because it provides the reader with history and depth, but as more complete stories, they can be rather difficult.

[Galadriel55]

Interesting point, Boro. Now that I think of it, a lot of The Sil and UT was actually complemented the glimpses from LOTR quite nicely (I think the coming of Eorl to the Celebrant is one of the best examples out there), but I think that some glimpses are better left as glimpses. The thing I did not like was the structuralized, umm, how should I say it? hierarchy? organization? of the "supernatural" beings, their role in the world, and that stuff. The "macro" stuff. At first, I actually was glad to have that background, because hey, which one of us never wondered who was Gandalf really and what's out there in the West and who's that Elbereth person. Same as the age-old question of the identity of ol' Bombadil. A couple years ago I switched gears completely; things were starting to lose their magic, and the story started getting bogged down with technicalities (well, if Eru and the Valar really had XYZ powers and responsibilities, then why did they or did they not do ABC...). I think I much prefer ol' Tom as just Tom, without clarification on his origins. Likewise, I like the Valar in LOTR better than the Valar of The Silm - more mysterious, less defined, more powerful - more spiritually powerful. You hear the Elves singing of Elbereth, and you sense their awe, and you imagine stars, and a presence that made those stars - it's a lovely glimpse that enriches both the history and the spirituality of LOTR. Elbereth as the Valie who fashioned stars out of the light of the Two Trees... kinda cool, but it loses its mystery, and the richness falls apart. Debates of who is an Eruhini and who is not, and if Ents and Dwarves have an afterlife, and all those other technicalities - really, I wish I hadn't read all that because, truth be told, as curious as I am, some details are better left unknown. It's a different world where you can feel all that's meant to be felt regarding a world but that we don't feel in RL for some reason; it's not a scientific paper where everything has a cause and effect and must be explained. Some things just are. Let them be.

To bring this rant to a close, I think that one of the reason the setting of LOTR stands out from a lot of other medieval fantasy settings is that it has a good balance of definitiveness (things don't happen completely out of nowhere... except the Eagles maybe ) or mystery (magic is magic and that's the end of it - it can be felt, but not explained). Sometimes it's good not to know. Curiosity dies if it's completely satisfied, and that curiosity that you're left with after being given a small peak into the life and history of ME is what gives LOTR the richness. Answer the questions, the curiosity is gone, and so is the interest.

[Mithalwen]

Just a quick post to say I am in on this..ashamed to say I haven't really looked at UT since at least before Galadriel was born so high time..but I need to read..