Turin the Hopeless?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Yet, it was in the idealistic 60's that LotR really took off in popularity, not in the 50's. LotR wasn't taken up by those 'anti-romantics' of the 50's, but by the romantics of the 60's. And now, in the anti-romantic, cynical, frightened & fanatical world of the early 21st century, we have CoH topping the bestseller lists across the world.

Interesting....

But isn't the important question this. Just why are all those people buying C of H? Is it because the "anti-romantic, cynical" aspects of the book draw readers into the story, and then they urge their friends to give it a try? Or is it because most of these readers had already read LotR and, based on their attraction to that bittersweet tale (a word which I prefer to davem's adjective "romantic") they would invariably search out any new Tolkien title? Perhaps, that searching would take place no matter what the tone of the new book was. Admitedly, people must like the story enough to pass on positive words to their friends. But does it really go beyond that to an attraction to the work because of its distinctive tone is somehow better suited to the 21st century?

On a personal level, I read and was moved by C of H. Yet it hasn't drastically altered my perception of the author, since there were certainly stories in Silm/HoMe with a similar grim tone. Stand alone novel or no, it is one small piece of a much larger story, and it is that larger story that holds the greater attraction for me.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

Thou dost protest too much, methinks. CoH's bestselling most likely has more to do with it having been authored by Tolkien, and it being a brimming good yarn. These facts do not make Túrin a more noble character.

Originally Posted by Child

But does it really go beyond that to an attraction to the work because of its distinctive tone is somehow better suited to the 21st century?

Possibly. Yet many, I think, who didn't care for Tolkien's other work will try the book because of the many reviewers in the 'serious' press who have said that while they didn't get on with Tolkien's other work they found the darker, bleaker vision of CoH a revelation. Also, something else I've noted in quite a few of the reviews (& I think this is due in no small part to John Garth's work)- references to Tolkien's wartime experiences & the way they have influenced his work. CoH will be for many readers a return to Tolkien after many years away.

Another point re the Lewis review is that while it applies perfectly to LotR:

"The book is like lightning from a clear sky... To say that in it heroic romance, gorgeous, eloquent, and unashamed, has suddenly returned at a period almost pathological in its anti-romanticism, is inadequate."

It could not be applied to CoH. As I said, CoH is 'pathologically anti-romantic'. And I wonder if that is due to the presence of 'God' in LotR & his absence in CoH? It seems as if (in Tolkien's case at least) the 'gorgeous, eloquent, unashamed & principally 'romantic' dimension required the presence of 'God'. When he comes to write a story without 'God' he swings to the opposite ('pathological') extreme - whatever can go wrong will go wrong & go as badly wrong as it possibly can. The one is the inverse of the other, & I can't help feeling that they reflect the two aspects of Tolkien's personality.

[Aiwendil]

As I said, CoH is 'pathologically anti-romantic'.

I think one ought to be careful about how one defines 'romantic'. If you ask me, the 'Narn' is rather romantic. Tragedy and Romanticism are not opposites.

[littlemanpoet]

CoH is of a piece with LotR and all of Tolkien's other writings. To emphasize the differences will get one only so far.

Perhaps it would be best to say "I like CoH because ..... ", rather than making claims about it as if the 21st century, or paganism, or Christianity, could own it. It is its own work.

That does not mean that the characters may not be evaluated.

Well, that's enough from me on this thread. Signing off.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I think one ought to be careful about how one defines 'romantic'. If you ask me, the 'Narn' is rather romantic. Tragedy and Romanticism are not opposites.

Of course. One can use it in the precisely defined literary sense, or one can use it in the colloquial sense. CoH, as Garth & James Parker in the Boston.com review make clear, CoH is a post WWI, specifically a post Somme, novel. The 'romantic' idealism of the Victorian/Edwardian world died on the battlefields of France. Parker states

Late in "The Children of Hurin" the warrior Dorlas suffers a failure of courage ("He sits shivering on the shore") that Tolkien's contemporaries would have recognized immediately as shell shock. To his admirer W.H. Auden, Tolkien confided that he was a writer "whose instinct is to cloak such self-knowledge as he has, and such criticisms of life as he knows it, under mythical and legendary dress." John Garth, in his 2003 book "Tolkien and the Great War," imagines the convalescent Tolkien in 1917, sitting up in bed with pen and paper, poised at the creation of a work that will either be called "Tuor and the Exiles of Gondolin" or "A Subaltern on the Somme." He did not, of course, write a trench memoir: The path he took went inward, and down, and it would require the faithful excavations of another Tolkien generation to see exactly how far he went.

[Sir Kohran]

I have to say I feel kind of annoyed that almost everyone I've talked to or read about regards The Children Of Hurin as merely something to do with LOTR - like a DVD add-on or an extended edition. All the reviews from casual readers say that Tolkien fans will like it but it will be impossible for anyone else - only the people familiar with LOTR will read it. Like davem said, this will probably never be seen as a standalone work - the 'Tolkien' on the front cover will immediately lead it to be forever associated with the story of LOTR. The tragic ending, the hopeless frustration and the dark atmosphere will be either regarded as 'anachronistic' or simply be forgotten about, and 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. Tolkien as an author and his latest story will never be able to break out of this 'mould', it seems.

[davem]

From fantasy novelist Wayne Thomas Batson's blog:
http://enterthedoorwithin.blogspot.c...-of-hurin.html

I said above that I was glad that I read CoH, but I don’t think I’ll ever read it again. That must sound strange. But you have to understand, I’m a sucker for a happy ending. No, I’m not a sap who unrealistically wants everything to turn out rosy. I absolutely love how in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien presents heroic victories, but they all come at tremendous cost. Sacrifice, death and suffering—okay, but I still want the victory. CoH is a tragedy and an intimate, penetrating tragedy at that. Anyone and everyone you will come to love in this story will die and usually in the most gut-wrenching ways. You will be yelling at Morwen, Turin, and Nienor in your mind, saying, “No, don’t do that! Don’t say that! Don’t fall for that!” And of course, they’ll do just what you feared they would. Time after time, characters will ignore the sage advice of friends who love them, and peril will result.

And after reading Children of Hurin, I am convinced there are things far worse than death. Watching every tragedy known to humankind befall your offspring—being chief among them. Morgoth’s curse so utterly devastated Hurin’s kin that it makes me wonder why he didn’t just throw a curse on ALL of his enemies and then, sit back and watch the mayhem unfold. And about Morgoth: there’s nothing better than having a really bad villain get what’s coming to him. But not in CoH. Morgoth escapes virtually unscathed. I guess I knew that going in, as Earendil and the Valar take care of Morgoth much later in the history of Middle Earth. Still, I wanted to smack Morgoth with a big war hammer, but it never happens. CoH struck me much like Mystic River, Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan, and The Departed. These are all extremely well-told stories. Well designed, well-directed, well-cast, well-acted, and well-shot—but dreadfully depressing. The Children of Hurin ended and left me with a vacant sense of dread, but no hope.

So, anyone else feel the same way - is CoH a book that you're glad you read but one that you won't want to read again?

I was very struck by Batson's comments because he's someone who knows the larger story, that Earendel will make it to the West & rouse the Valar, that Morgoth will fall & the eucatastrophe will occur.

Yet, he is left 'with a vacant sense of dread, but no hope.' This is what I meant about the effect of publishing CoH as a stand alone work - even those who know the greater context will be affected by the story's darkness & lack of hope. In effect we have two CoH's - one which is part of the Legendarium, & is the darkness that comes before the dawn. The other is the novel as a stand alone work, one that some may not want to read twice....

[tumhalad2]

This is (or was) an interesting thread, and three years later I'd like to respond to the question Davem was exploring - shall I read CoH again? Absolutely!

It is, by far, my favourite work by Tolkien, I think exactly for the reasons that have been discussed in this topic: its apparent applicability, the sense of a distinct non-, or anti-providence, the immanence of menace incarnated in Morgoth, and, I think, the unanswered questions.

It is tempting to answer Turin's question: What is fate?, or his agnosticism regarding the Valar, and his apparent ignorance (indeed, everyone's apparent ignorache) concerning an all powerful creator God, with recourse to The Lord of the Rings, of "Quendi and Eldar", or "Ainulindale" or some other extraneous text. But I think this is a mistake. I have no evidence to support my claim, but I'm not entirely certain that Tolkien wouldh've recommended such a reading either. Just remember, in the chapter "The Words of Hurin and Morgoth", the last words a given to Morgoth, not to Hurin's hopefully "estel" like pronouncements. Morgoth rebukes Hurin's "Elvish lore" by stating emphatically that "you shall see and you shall confess that I do not lie". I wouldn't go so far as to say that Morgoth is actually speaking truthfully; clearly the Valar do intervene eventually, and yet; their actions, and the actions (or non actions) of a supposedly good and benevolent God (Eru) leave something to be desired. I think CoH is cheapened if it is merely perceived as a part of a greater story; no, it is so powerful, so forceful, too grandiosely tragic, that it accumulates meaning that does not, even tangentially, support the "thesis" of ultimate eucatastrophe in the world. The cost is so stunning, and the ignorance of the "gods" so complete, that we are left with little choice but to embrace the story on its own terms.

[Formendacil]

I'm really glad this thread got revivified--I seem to have missed it, the first time around.

Originally Posted by davem

So, anyone else feel the same way - is CoH a book that you're glad you read but one that you won't want to read again?

I was very struck by Batson's comments because he's someone who knows the larger story, that Earendel will make it to the West & rouse the Valar, that Morgoth will fall & the eucatastrophe will occur.

Yet, he is left 'with a vacant sense of dread, but no hope.' This is what I meant about the effect of publishing CoH as a stand alone work - even those who know the greater context will be affected by the story's darkness & lack of hope. In effect we have two CoH's - one which is part of the Legendarium, & is the darkness that comes before the dawn. The other is the novel as a stand alone work, one that some may not want to read twice....

Speaking for myself, CoH is one of my favourite parts of the Silmarillion
legendarium, and I like the Silmarillion as a complete work. However, when I read the Silmarillion, I invariably skim through the Túrin chapter. Perhaps this is simply because it's the condensed version, and being familiar with the fuller tale, I naturally prefer that.

From that alone, it's understandable that I would prefer the fuller account, CoH, and naturally I'm grateful to have an unabridged account that doesn't have me reading Unfinished Tales, and having to skip back to the Notes and the Silmarillion account to fill the gap. However, I think it's more than that: when I read CoH, I don't want to finish the Silmarillion. At most, I wish that Tolkien had gone on with The Last Wanderings of Húrin, and that the tale of woe and doom had proceeded thence, more fully, to the mournful last days of Húrin and the woe wraught with the Nauglamir.

But I don't particularly want to come to the eucatastrophe and the War of Wrath. CoH makes one hate Morgoth as much or more than the whole fall of the Noldor and the rape of the Silmarils, but it casts a whole different air on him--or, perhaps, on those fighting him. In the Silmarillion broadly, the Noldor are doomed, but heroic figures facing an unbeatable enemy, holding him back at all costs, and then winning at last through the heroism of one who sought the West and won their (deserved?) pardon. In CoH, however, Morgoth is never portrayed as unbeatable--rather, he is portrayed as winning time and time again because his enemies are fallible, and foolish, and frail, and prone in the end to do as HE wants. Túrin, Nargothrond, and Doriath--the world of "good" portrayed in CoH--always seem to have the chance of more victory within their human grasp... but they fail to achieve it, whereas the "good" of the Silmarillion--perhaps to be characterised as Beren and Lúthien, Tuor and Idril,and Gondolin--not only seem to deserve victory, they win victories beyond what they SHOULD win.

As I come up with this, it is occurring to me that perhaps this is why CoH needs to have these two versions: one set contextually in the broader tale, and one set alone. The tale set alone shows the full consequences of the Fall, both Elven and Mannish, and just how doomed we are alone. In a sense, I think, it is an atheist's tale, whereas the Silmarillion is the tale of a Believer, and in Túrin's part of the broader tale, you can see how the convincing despair of "there is no hope, no God" might fit into the grander scheme of hope in eucatastrophe....

Nonetheless, I do prefer reading CoH alone. It's stands alone splendidly.