Christopher Tolkien to finish lost Middle Earth novel

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

II wish I were a ten year old who had an entire day and a half in which to do nothing but read.

I'm with you there! So hard to find a chunk of time larger than 15 minutes in which to bury oneself in a good book. And Tolkien is such a wonderful writer, isn't he? Amazing how regardless of the style, he is capable of transporting a person far away. You feel the cold and smell the rain...and imagine the hot humid stench of Glaurung's breath.

[davem]

http://reformedpastor.wordpress.com/...final-triumph/

Also, there's a short review by Tom Shippey in this week's Times Literary Supplement (not on line yet), & another short one in this month's SFX magazine.

[Aiwendil]

I finally bought it. Not sure if these points regarding the cover art have been mentioned yet:

- The Dragon-helm doesn't appear to have a visor (it is supposed to).

- The picture has Turin wearing the Dragon-helm and also holding a black sword, which must of course be Anglachel/Gurthang. But in this version of the story he loses the Dragon-helm after the battle at Amon Rudh, whereas (in all versions) he doesn't acquire Anglachel until his rescue from the Orcs; so he shouldn't have both at the same time.

- Surely the picture on the back cover (and again between the title page and chapter 1) is Beren and Luthien being borne to Doriath by the eagles. What has this to do with the Turin saga?

[davem]

This is one of the best reviews I've come across

http://superversive.livejournal.com/49730.html

[Findegil]

About the picture at the backside of the dustcover: It is not Beren and Lúthien that are born by the eagles. The picture shows Húrin and Huor when they are brought to Gondolin.

Good observation that Túrin has in the story as presented never Helm and sword at on time. (It is a nice detail that the picture would fit our version with Túrin waering the Helm at the Fall of Nargothrond and when he set out kill Glaurung.)

That the helm has no visor was mentioned before. Overall nice pictures, but when it comes to details one can allway find some faults.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

This is one of the best reviews I've come across

http://superversive.livejournal.com/49730.html

Just for the sake of discussion, care to elaborate on why you think this is one of the best?

EDIT: Fascinating that the Reformed Pastor (in the link which davem gives in post #392 above) links to this thread's list of reviews.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Just for the sake of discussion, care to elaborate on why you think this is one of the best?

Well, for one thing, most of the reviews I've seen so far have had little original to say. There are probably no more than a dozen really good ones I've come across - ones with something significant to say. I think this reviewer has real insight into what Tolkien was doing, & demolishes a couple of the sillier reviews. What's interesting is that this guy is a Catholic, & one would think that as such he'd play up the 'bigger picture' argument - seeing CoH in the context of the Legendarium, & drawing in the 'eucatastrophic' fall of Morgoth - as certain of my 'opponents' in the Turin the Hopeless thread did:

Originally Posted by Tom Simon

Who, then, is morally simplistic, or childish, or escapist? Is it the great authors of the last century — Tolkien, Orwell, Vonnegut, Burgess, to name only a few — who dressed up human wickedness in fairy-tale costumes so that we could bear to look upon it and call it by its name? Or the academics and critics, the Modernists and Postmodernists, who refused to look and pretended it did not exist? It takes a peculiar and wilful blindness to accuse Tolkien of moral puerility, or to read him without seeing the deadly seriousness of the issues his fantasies raise. The Children of Húrin is Tolkien at his darkest, Tolkien looking into the abyss; and I find it deeply disturbing that none of his enemies and few of his friends seem capable of grasping the fact.

This is another very good piece on Tolkien by Simon http://superversive.livejournal.com/47255.html#cutid1

[Bêthberry]

Yes, I think you are right; Simon's review does Tolkien the honour of treating him as an artist and discussing the work as a creation. I was initially put off by his opening gambit of that old canard of the academic critics who naysay Tolkien, but pleasantly impressed with his bookend about gushing fans.

For my reading, I find Hurin more interesting and compelling than The Silm. Perhaps because the characterizations are more closely developed with the theme of fate, perhaps because the malice of Morgoth is dramatised more, perhaps because Tolkien has for me captured that entire world view which I find so fascinating in Beowulf, fatalism, dustsceawung. Rarely has a story explored so relentlessly the nature and foibles of human pride.

Interesting too, what Simon says--ha ha--that only in fantasy could we look upon the face of evil.