Is The Children of Hurin better than the Lord of the Rings?

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by NogrodtheGreat

Doubtless The Lord of the Rings succeeds in questions of detail. By that standard it also beats Cormac McCarthy's the Road (a book similar in many surprising respects to the Children of Hurin), but neither detail nor length make a reading experience worthwhile on their own.

Robert Jordan's fantasy series spans multiple tomes and usually excruciating levels of detail, and yet I find his books far less memorable that the Silmarillion itself, let alone the Lord of the Rings. A tight, compact, exquisitely written work like The Road can leave an impact long after the covers have been shut, and so too, I think, The Children of Hurin.

I quite agree. I haven't read The Road but I have read McCarthy's Child of God and I wholeheartedly agree with you that a book does not have to be long (let alone a series! The Wheel of Time is a horrific offender in this regard, what a bore). Indeed some of my favourite novels (The Great Gatsby, All Quiet on the Western Front, etc) are quite brief. But I was purely comparing The Lord of the Rings to The Children of Húrin, not literature in general. I am not classifying "less detail" as "bad" by any margin. Personally I enjoy that particular level of detail which Professor Tolkien employs in The Lord of the Rings, which when you think about it is comparatively brief compared to most of Tolkien's successors/imitators. I think it is heavily dependent on the author. Personally The Lord of the Rings hits the spot for me, but that's just my judgement.

In this regard I believe it is purely a matter of taste. This is not some kind of attack on The Children of Húrin, which I still like a lot, but I really do not believe that one work of art can be certifiably 'better' than another - I would go mad if I did, for so much popular art (literature, films, etc) I absolutely despise. I would think myself an alien. Indeed, that would mean I was "wrong" for preferring The Lord of the Rings, which doesn't make a great deal of sense in my opinion. I don't believe aesthetic standards are completely arbitrary, but I don't think they're objective either.

Regardless, I have only read The Children of Húrin once, so perhaps it just hasn't had the opportunity to work its magic on me the way The Lord of the Rings has.

[NogrodtheGreat]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

In this regard I believe it is purely a matter of taste. This is not some kind of attack on The Children of Húrin, which I still like a lot, but I really do not believe that one work of art can be certifiably 'better' than another - I would go mad if I did, for so much popular art (literature, films, etc) I absolutely despise. I would think myself an alien. Indeed, that would mean I was "wrong" for preferring The Lord of the Rings, which doesn't make a great deal of sense in my opinion. I don't believe aesthetic standards are completely arbitrary, but I don't think they're objective either.

Regardless, I have only read The Children of Húrin once, so perhaps it just hasn't had the opportunity to work its magic on me the way The Lord of the Rings has.

I agree, aesthetic taste isn't arbitrary but it isn't objective either - kinda like morality. Nor would i call you wrong for preferring one to the other. Of course, if taste were completely indiscriminate, then we couldn't have any kind of meaningful discussion about it.

But yes, you are right that the level of detail Tolkien employed in the Lord of the Rings is very effective - Brian Rosebury has a great discussion, for example, of Tolkien's use of landscape detail to illicit certain emotions and develop particular tones. In my view this is one reason why the Lord of the Rings is indeed so spectacular, and so vividly creates Middle-earth.

I guess I brought up The Road because my response to it (and also Blood Meridian) was so similar to my response to the Children of Hurin (and also another shorter fantasy work, the Broken Sword). That "novella" quality enables a certain terseness of style that suits the tragic subject matter. Both McCarthy and Tolkien in their different ways rise to the occasion and develop appropriate styles for the kinds of stories they are telling. (coming to think of it, I think Tolkien studies would be enriched by this kind of 'comparative' approach. How is TOlkien like contemporary authors like McCarthy, with whom he shares some interesting similarities).

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by NogrodtheGreat

(coming to think of it, I think Tolkien studies would be enriched by this kind of 'comparative' approach. How is TOlkien like contemporary authors like McCarthy, with whom he shares some interesting similarities).

Absolutely. My present research thesis involves comparing Professor Tolkien's work to various authors of utopian and dystopian literature (Morris, Orwell etc).

I think the terseness of style is an important point, because I think in Professor Tolkien's work it's so referential to now-archaic literary forms like the saga and the romance, which I think may account for why some find The Silmarillion and even The Lord of the Rings difficult.