The Book of Lost Tales Part I: A Readthrough

[Formendacil]

Nothing came of my post in the Chapter-by-Chapter forum trying to drum up interest in a CbC of The Book of Lost Tales, positive OR negative, and that's probably result enough to put away the idea it was a worthwhile endeavour right now. Still, I want to reread the book(s) and I want to discuss the things I read with fellow Downers--or at least to put my observations up here. Whether anyone finds something to respond to is not entirely up to me. So here's a thread to that effect.

What is the Book of Lost Tales?

The Barrow-downs is full of exceptional Tolkien fans, most of whom already know what The Book of Lost Tales, and quite a few of you have already read it, but for the sake of completeness, and in case we have any burgeoning fans who are nearer the beginning of their journey through the volumes of Middle-earth than the end, I will start by explaining:

The Book of Lost Tales Part I and The Book of Lost Tales Part II are the first two volumes of The History of Middle-earth series. Sadly (or so thought my approximately-thirteen-year-old self when I first encountered it), it is NOT a twelve-volume history of Arda; instead, it chronicles the history of how Middle-earth came to be written, from the first attempts in the 1910s through the late texts of the 1960s.

The Foreword:
The first section of The Book of Lost Tales Part I is the foreword, in which Christopher Tolkien sets the goals of the project. The thing I find the most fascinating about this section is the context in which it was written. Published in 1983, The Book of Lost Tales Part I debuted three years after Unfinished Tales and six years after The Silmarillion, only ten years after J.R.R. Tolkien's death--in other words, less time elapsed from Tolkien's death until the beginning of the HoME than elapsed during the run of the HoME--the last volume, The Peoples of Middle-earth would be published in 1996, thirteen years later. In other words, as I see things, the HoME began as a very early

And on the note of time passing, the texts begins "The Book of Lost Tales, written between sixty and seventy years ago...[/i]. Thirty-one years later, those numbers would read "between ninety and one hundred years ago." We're closing on (or have passed, depending on when you want to celebrate it) the centennial of Middle-earth's creation. Does anyone have plans to celebrate? We should really do something--maybe in 2016 or 2017.

The Foreword, which not only introduces The Book of Lost Tales but, though it was not a guaranteed thing at the time of writing, the entire History of Middle-earth series, is probably the most definitive apologia of Christopher Tolkien's literary executorship, explaining why he published the sort of Silmarillion that he did, neither taking the more creative path that one might call the Guy Gavriel Kay route, nor the pure scholarship route. He says, speaking of what had come before, "The published work has no 'framework,' no suggestion of what it is and how (within the imagined world) it came to be. This is now think to have been an error" (p.5, emphasis added).

One can agree or disagree with CT about what he *should* have done, and there are no shortage of fans who disagree with what he did after this beginning-of-the-HoME course correction, but I do not think it is possible to give him anything other than praise for being willing to say he made a mistake--a mistake that made plenty of money and plenty of gratitude from fans who wanted more of Middle-earth.

And although CT thinks he took the wrong tack, I think it is important to note that he isn't saying that The Silmarillion ought to have been more dry and academic and more like the HoME than it was. He says that "of course, 'The Silmarillion' was intended to move the heart and imagination, directly, and without peculiar effort or the possession of unusual faculties." CT admits that The Silmarillion will not be for everyone; his problem isn't with the style of the book, but with the fact that it came divorced from a proper Transmission Conceit--the aridity of the book stems from its genre as a historical redaction, but this isn't an illusion-building strength unless there's a framework to help demonstrate how and why this history has passed down.

In both defending what he has done and what he will do going forward, Christopher Tolkien can almost be read as constantly warning the reader to turn away from the book in hand. Given the complaints he's addressing, that The Silmarillion had "even produced a sense of outrage - in one case formulated to me [CT] in the words 'It's like the Old Testament!': a dire condemnation against which, clearly, there can be no appeal." In other words, The Silmarillion was not another The Lord of the Rings, and that warning applies doubly to The Book of Lost Tales.

Personally, though I find that reading The Book of Lost Tales is like taking a step back towards immediacy from the distance of The Silmarillion, and in that respect it *IS* more like The Lord of the Rings, though he is right that the framework HERE, of editorial commentary and divergent, hastily written texts, makes it difficult matter. It is, CT says, "liable to be an intricate and crabbed thing, in which the reader is never left alone for the moment."

What if...?
One thing I want to do with this posts, in addition to making observations, is to posit some what-ifs. "What if [x] had survived into the Silm?", for example. But here, at the beginning of this thread, I have a different question:

What if someone published YOUR wastepaper basket (as CT has been accused of doing)? Of course, in this case, JRRT never seems to have thrown out a draft, never requested his papers be destroyed, and told his son to do as he saw fit--and, in general, Tolkien fans have been grateful indeed for all we've been given (if greedy for even more).

That gives a lot of fodder to drawing impressions about Tolkien, but is it something YOU would want? Personally, I destroy anything I REALLY don't want people to see, but the rest of it I keep, if only because *I* will probably enjoy digging it, bad prose and all, someday. But I have the luxury of thinking there will be no audience for my wastepaper basket. If there was an audience for yours, would you be inclined to pre-emptively burn it? Can you even envision having someone you would trust to make judgements about what to share and what to burn? That part truly awes me... though perhaps, as I have no children thus far, that is an aspect of Tolkien's life I simply haven't got the experience to compare to.

[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.

[Formendacil]

It's been a couple weeks, which has either given people a chance to catch up or to forget this project completely, but with Thanksgiving passed, let's put another chapter up--"The Coming of the Elves and the Making of Kôr," which is a direct continuation of "The Chaining of Melko" and told by the same teller, Meril-i-Turinqui.

The basic bones of this tale are much the same as the later version of the tale, though with the big context-changer introduced in "The Chaining of Melko": the fact that the Elves waken AFTER Melko's imprisonment. This changes the context of their arrival and allows Tolkien to make it seem more surprising and wonderful to the Valar. Perhaps it's the season, but this reminded me a little bit of Christmas, with the Valar playing the roles of both the choirs of angels AND the inhabitants of the world, to whom the Eldar (collectively the "Son of God") are born.

And the dual role of the Valar has a parallel in the dual revelation of the Elves' coming: the direct knowledge granted to Manwë and the "discovery" made by Palúrien and Oromë. Christopher Tolkien thinks this a deficiency: he says in his commentary "The story of Oromë's coming upon the newly awakened Elves is seen to go back to the beginnings ... but its singular beauty and force is the less for the fact of their coming being known independently to Manwë, so that the great Valar did not need to be told of it by Oromë." I'm not entirely sure I agree with this assessment, but it does highlight a couple of things:

1. Tolkien is being careful to safeguard the preeminence of Manwë. Like All-seeing Zeus or Odin-who-has-drunk-of-the-well-of-wisdom, Manwë's knowledge must be superior to the rest of the Valar. Perhaps this is the real element that counterbalances Manwë against Melko: Melko may have the power, but he lacks the knowledge.

2. CT is certainly right, whether or not it's weakened by Manwë's independent knowledge, to say that there is singular beauty and force to Oromë's discovery of the Elves--at least in my opinion. The excitement that courses through Valinor (including the second star-making) is palpable and much stronger than in the more clinical version seen later. The celebration is underlining with a touch of foreboding in the detail that this is day Melko is released from Angaino--a detail not possible in the later story, when Melkor's imprisonment follows a different timeline, and his release is changed to darken the years of the Eldar in Aman.

The major change--other than the immediacy of the tale--that I note is the fact that the earlier story lacks the "genealogical" detail of the later text--for good reason. Finwë has yet to acquire any descendent other than Turgon, Tinwë (the later Elwë) has no Olwë--though In(g)wë's family, as I've noted before is actually fuller in the original version--and the later multiple divisions of the Teleri into Nandor and Falathrim and Sindar have not yet arisen for the Solosimpi--at least not in as formal a matter. This is a common element of the Lost Tales: a shorter list of names than the later versions, counterbalancing a lusher descriptiveness.

Things to consider:

1.) Why does Ilúvatar wipe the Elves' memories of what came before? Or, rather, what I'm trying to get at: what is there to wipe? Why did they have a prior existence and where was it?

2.) The detail of imagery given about the Kôr is greater here than in any later text, reminding me of CT's comment somewhere in HoME III The Lays of Beleriand, about Nargothrond, where he compares it to Gondolin in the BoLT--and I paraphrase here: "only once, it seems, did my father visit either of these cities in up-close detail." If this is true of Kôr also, is it fair to say that Tolkien seems to have had single-impulse creative motivations regarding his fictional cities?

3.) "Indeed, war had been but held off by the Gods, who desired peace and would not suffer Ulmo to gather the folk of the Valar and assail Ossë." Wait, war? War! Ulmo and Ossë certainly do not care for each other in the later texts, but the idea that the Valar could go to war against anyone other than Melko(r) is really hard to wrap my mind around, even as unrealised possibility.

4.) CT points out in the commentary that the Lonely Isle was much lonelier in the earlier conception, far out to sea between the Great Lands and Valinor, not (as in the later conception) within the Bay of Eldamar. I feel like this SHOULD colour my impression of Eriol's own story--not only has the sundering of the Earth post-Númenor not even been conceived of yet, but reaching the Lonely Isle is not quite the Eärendil-like endeavour I'm defaulting to imagining as a result of my knowledge of the later legendarium.



There are two poems included in the commentary: "Kôr," a poem picturing that city as it was (probably) at the time of Eárendel's arrival, and "A Song of Aryador," recalling those lost on the Great March.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

One of the most interesting things about the poem Kor is that (in its first form) it predates the Lost Tales; I'm fascinated by the hints and glimpses of Tolkien's conception ca 1914-16 as revealed in the early poems and lexicons.

The poem does show that one of the very earliest images was that of the mariner wandering through a great but abandoned city- an image T stuck with to the end, even though eventually he needed a different explanation (the Noldor were all at a festival on Taniquetil).

[Orphalesion]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

3.) "Indeed, war had been but held off by the Gods, who desired peace and would not suffer Ulmo to gather the folk of the Valar and assail Ossë." Wait, war? War! Ulmo and Ossë certainly do not care for each other in the later texts, but the idea that the Valar could go to war against anyone other than Melko(r) is really hard to wrap my mind around, even as unrealised possibility.

Well that brings us back to the point were the Valar back then were still much more like the Aesir and Vanir who were also prone to fight and quarrel. Back then Osse often opposed Ulmo directly and this element never completely vanished. Even later he is mentioned to have briefly turned to Melkor int he beginning.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

There are two poems included in the commentary: "Kôr," a poem picturing that city as it was (probably) at the time of Eárendel's arrival, and "A Song of Aryador," recalling those lost on the Great March.

I love the Song of Aryador. First of all I always loved the name Aryador, it sounds very beautiful and the "Lost Elves", very romantic in a way.

It's interesting how perilous the journey of the Elves was in the earlier conceptions. Later all Eldar who stay in Endor turn away from the journey willingly (for one reason or the other), but in this early stage many simply got lost.
The shadow folk of Hisilome is (at this point) even considered to have been Teleri (Vanyar) who got lost in the dark woods of Hisilome when marching to board Tol Eressea.
Hisilome was a strange place in this early phase, does anybody else get the idea that at some, probably very early stage it was meant to mean Scandinavia? (at the time when Tol Eressea still later became the British Isles and Earendel had to cross the "wildernesses of Europe") Hilisome back then meant "land of shadows" and Scandinavia is sometimes thought to be related to old Gemanic words for shadow.

And I love the description of the "Peace of Arda" in which the Elves were born. How, without Melkor frost and cold withdrew into the outermost North and all of Arda was in eternal summer. Even the seas were so calm that plants could grow to the very edge of the ocean. It seems a very beautiful world.

And am I the only one who likes the early description of the Solosimpi better than what the Teleri/Falmari became in the Silmarillion? Their dancing and piping along the beaches, their grotto like houses and especially the picture of them preforming dances around pools which they have filled with the gems given to them by the Noldoli.

However what I don't like too much is the idea that all gems, in the whole world were created by the Noldoli of Valinor. Soehow this element seems a bit too fairly tale like and I'm glad Tolkien later changed it to have the Noldor be miners who only occasionally created "magical" gems.