is Silmarillion better than Lord of the rings?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

For all smart people out there yes I know that Silm is part of Lotr. I'm talking story wise. Basically I want to find out what you think is;
The most existing,
The most addictive
And the most interesting of the two stories ( by the way I mean the fellowship, the two towers and return of the king is one book)

[Naldoriathil]

I don't think of them as being different books. LOTR is just a following on from The Silmarilion. Although, LOTR is more story orientated than The Silm, I don't have a particular favourite. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[lore_master]

in my opinion they are two different books. being as how part of the silmarilion is about the war of the ring.

but anyway, i think LotR is more addicting, while the Silmarilion is a little more interesting. but thats just my opinion [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Arvedui III]

The Sim is just a little harder to get in to. But I don't have a particular favorite. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Yavanna Kementari]

The Silmarillion is not exactly part of Lord of the Rings. It's more llike a history book with a little added insight on LotR.

It's kind of like The Old Testament and the New Testament. We see how Middle Earth was formed. A prophesy of forboding evil and availing justice. We also see how some of the Lays we hear were begun. The battle of The Powers of Arda. And how my beloved trees were ruined [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img] * tear* and how our Sun and Moon were created [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

It is very much it's own separate being. I Loved the Silmarillion it is 2nd in line next to LotR ( the original publishing was to be ONE whole book per request of J.R.R. Tolkien).

Some people find it dry and/ or uninteresting. [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img] I think it just depends on how involved you want to be in the history of Middle Earth.


The Unfinished Tales is also good to read if you like history, but don't feel like taking a history 'lesson', if you see what I mean.

I would suggest it to you to read it is very informative and helpful.
-(~<~> Yavanna

[Estelyn Telcontar]

This thread has been moved to join other opinion topics on the Novices and Newcomers forum. Please continue to read and post there.

[Meela]

nope

[Finwen]

For my part, I prefer Silm. I just enjoy that style of story-telling a lot more, and I love many of the individual stories, especially those involving the sons of Feanor. I find Silm. interesting because it shows a very different side to the Elves than is seen in the Lord of the Rings - it 'humanises' them, which can be fun to see.

That said, I suppose that one of the joys of the Silmarillion is seeing how it inter-contects with the Lord of the Rings, and neither of them would be as good without the existance of the other.

[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Demloth of Dol Amroth]

both are good. anyone reading silmarillion must be able to endure a LONG read though. for some reason i digest epics quite well, as well as long histories, so it's all good. the only thing i couldn't stand but managed to get through in LOTR was the part when they were on the barrowdowns-some of it was interesting, but i thought it was very long and very boring.

[Gorwingel]

I have to say that I prefer LOTR to Silmarillion, not that it is a better story, because they are both good, but I just enjoy the style it is written in a little bit better. Also I do consider them two different books, because the main charaters in them are totally different (yes, they do have some of the same charaters, but the ones from LOTR are barely talked about) LOTR is not really a continuation, because they do talk a little bit about the War of the Ring in the last section, but very, very briefly.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

I say that LotR is more addictive and more interesting than the Silm. I do not know what you mean by 'existing' though, so I cannot answer that part. I love both, however LotR is a classic compared to the Silm in my eyes, and there's just something about LotR that I prefer over the Silm.

[Inderjit Sanghera]

I like the Silmarillion better and must say I found it more addictive, simply becuase I prefer the characters in it, like Feanor and Hurin compared to LoTR.

Out of LoTR and the Silmarillion, I prefer the Sil, it is an amzing book, and it is written so beautifuly even though it is sad. It gives you the background history to LoTR, and fills in all those missing pieces, for instance The Rings of Power and the Akallabeth which is the downfall of Numenor. I love LoTR, but Sil is my all time favourite.

[Alakhriveion TMA]

The Silmarillion was better writen than LotR, period. LotR was more gripping because it was told like a story, and one could get to know the characters, but I still prefer Silmarillion

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings are very different books. The Lord of the Rings was written as a novel to fulfil the inevitable demand for a sequel to The Hobbit, and Tolkien used it to tie in Bilbo Baggins' adventure with the enormous sweeping vistas of his mythology. The Silmarillion, on the other hand, is a posthumous collation of his life's work, representing a not inconsiderable task on the part of its editors. I do not believe that such works can be adequately compared, especially since The Silmarillion did not have the benefits of its author's final polish.

I like the works equally, for completely differing reasons. The Silmarillion is an enormous literary achievement, representing sixty years of loving development, writing, re-writing and reconsideration. Without it there would be no Lord of the Rings as we know it, and its majestic language and epic style have a grandeur not normally seen in modern fiction.

The Lord of the Rings on the other hand is a brilliantly conceived novel that set the standard for a whole genre (one which has not been equalled to my mind). Look at the standard stock races of fantastic fiction and you will see J.R.R. Tolkien's signature, beneath those of the medieval saga poets he so admired. Even Warhammer 40,000, set 38,000 years in the future has Orcs, Dwarves, Men and Eldar looking much as though they had stepped from Tolkien's work for a brief holiday. It's a lovingly crafted story, in which new depths are found at every reading, and which covers almost every aspect of human experience. In adopting a more familiar approach in The Lord of the Rings Tolkien made the characters more accessible and human, which isn't to say that the characters in The Silmarillion are inaccessible, but that it can take more time and effort to get to know them properly.

Each book, then, has its advantages and disadvantages, but both testify to a prodigious talent, an astonishing erudition and a poetic, romantic soul. I would not want to choose between them, even if I could.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

To give my personal opinion I think Silm is the most addictive, especially once you are into the flow of it. Personally, I cannot put it down... LOTR was also a grate book, but Silm must be the best... considering Christopher had to do it all from notes

[elven maiden Earwen]

i think silm is better, morew addictive all of that. But LOTR's was great to and its not as confusing. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]