[ Daily Tolkien / Lord Of The Rings ] A Tolkien Virgin: Pre-amble and The Silmarillion: Ainulindalë

I haven’t read Tolkien. Well, okay, I think I started the Hobbit at one point, but didn’t get very far. And then I saw some animated TV or movie version of the Hobbit. But, that was all at least 10 years ago, I’m thinking, and a vague picture of an animated Bilbo taking a ring (that turns the bearer invisible) from the hideous Golem whose pet-name for the ring is "Precious," is all that I can remember.

At any rate, some friends of mine-avid Tolkien fans-have created Tolkien Online for other Tolkien aficionados. On the one hand it’s the home of the "Countdown to the Lord of the Rings movies." On the other (much larger hand) it’s the beginning of a dynamic community; a place for people to come and share and discuss anything Tolkien-not just the upcoming movies.

These two friends of mine, Ted and Jonathan, have such respect and such high esteem for Tolkien as a person, a writer, and a creator, I began to think, "maybe I should give this Tolkien fellow a try." Besides, I’ve been a fan of fantasy since before I was a teenager, and as a recent graduate with a degree in history, I’m interested in going to the roots of the modern fantasy genre. That would be Tolkien-arguably the "father of the modern fantasy genre," as Jonathan calls him.

I’ve decided to read The Lord of the Rings trilogy. But, not yet. I’m going to start with the Silmarillion and the Hobbit. Doing so isn’t absolutely necessary, I’m told; The Lord of the Rings is supposedly very good on its own. But, I’ve heard such good things about The Silmarillion, and how it really gives the reader a much greater understanding of the "big picture," of what’s going on behind the events in The Lord of the Rings, that I’m anxious to digest it before starting with The Lord of the Rings, itself. The Hobbit, which is perhaps more of a kids book, is referred to on occasion in The Lord of the Rings, so I thought I should be familiar with it, as well. So, I’m being sure to "cover all the bases," before I begin on my quest through the trilogy.

Now, Ted has had The Silmarillion, read in its entirety by Martin Shaw, on CD for a while now, and he and Jonathan both listened to it. From what they’ve said, The Silmarillion really is fantastic-if perhaps a bit tedious at times. I’m a terribly slow reader and the Silmarillion is quite long and can be a very slow read (not the perfect combination). So, I’m looking forward to being able to listen to it, instead.

As I listen to The Silmarillion and read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, I’ll be submitting a brief (and I do mean brief) play-by-play (chapter-by-chapter) of my reactions, thoughts, and overall impressions of Tolkien’s work. I am, after all, pretty much a Tolkien virgin, and I welcome you all to follow me as I’m "de-virginized," if you will.

If you haven’t read (or listened to) The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, or The Lord of the Rings, you probably don’t want to read my columns--I’ll most definitely spoil it for you. Instead, why not get The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings trilogy today and follow along? Then, you can compare your reactions with mine.As we journey through these books, chances are you’ll find yourself disagreeing with me, or catching something I may have missed.

Or, if you have read The Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Hobbit, but it’s been a while, why not read (or listen to) The Silmarillion and read them again? Chances are you’ll see something new-especially if you haven’t yet experienced The Silmarillion.

I’ll be honest. I’m a bit of a skeptic, so if Tolkien comes close to deserving the praise some of you hardcore fans give him, I’ll definitely be surprised. I’m certainly not expecting The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings to be bad. But, come on! Can anyone, really be that good?

Before I begin with my review of the specific sections of the Silmarillion, allow me to pose a question: Is the Silmarillion a history or a cosmology?

Why is this important? Well, it's a matter of approach. Should I approach it as a cosmology that is full of myths, exaggerations, and representative characters? Or should I approach it as a history that tells of actual events in which real people took a part. Don't get me wrong; I know that the Silmarillion is fiction. Naturally, though, Tolkien treats his fictional realm as a real one. So, the question isn't whether Middle Earth is real, but whether the events really took place and persons acted, thought, felt, and even existed the way the Silmarillion describes.

In the end, the Silmarillion is a cosmology that pretends to be a history. I don't care what Tolkien intended, the Silmarillion makes for terrible history. I have a degree in history, but not my masters. I'm familiar with a certain amount of history and historiography, but there's a good chance some of you have more substantial knowledge in these areas. So, feel free to counter this argument. But, approaching it as a history, I found myself making mental lists of things that were wrong with the Silmarillion--things as far ranging as unbelievable character development and the ridiculousness of the "Grand Narrative" approach to history that Tolkien--writing earlier this century--was clearly aping.

If you disagree with me, that's fine. If you think I'm being nitpicky, that's fine too. Because all of that is preface for me to say, don't read the Silmarillion as a history. Don't let character inconsistencies, stereotypes and inadequate physical descriptions, unbelievable turns of events, the passing of hundreds of years in a single sentence, and Tolkien's failure to describe the possibly rich and varied cultures of the peoples who are the primary actors in this story ruin it for you.

Chances are, I'm going to point out a few of these as we go, but rest assured, whatever I write I'm not mudslinging. I'm not determined for Tolkien to be bad just to shove it in your faces (Lord knows I'd be outnumbered). I'm not determined for Tolkien to be bad at all. In fact--brace yourselves--I'm actually enjoying the Silmarillion. It's really quite good, and I would even recommend it.

I'm amazed by the thoroughness of certain aspects of the Silmarillion. The fact that he starts at "the beginning" is impressive, and the amount of time involved is simply incomprehensible. Over all, the creation process is pretty impressive. It’s also very beautiful. Something I really like about this section is that the Ainur can’t actually see at first.

The one thing I’d like to talk about in this section is the whole situation surrounding Melkor and the nature of evil. Every good fantasy (and a lot of bad ones) has a foe, of course, and in this one it is Melkor. Tolkien creates the ultimate foe for his realm. And, when you think about it, the story really begins when things go wrong (Only a few paragraphs into it)—that is, when, ""it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Ilúvatar; for he sought therein to increase the power and glory of the part assigned to himself."

It's interesting that this evil is spontaneous—it merely "came into the heart of Melkor." We should also keep in mind that he is the "mightiest," the most greatly endowed with "power and knowledge." What do you think of how Tolkien puts a determinist spin on 'evil' when Ilúvatar proclaims, "And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined." So we end up with the sense that nothing is truly evil, since even when Melkor is at his worst, he's merely the instrument of Ilúvatar. And I’m pretty sure Tolkien doesn’t even use the word evil in this section. Peculiar—no?

Before we go on, let's note that the first sin—if we can call it that—in Tolkien's universe is a lust for power and glory—that is, a dissatisfaction with the lot that Ilúvatar had given Melkor, and he was already the greatest among the Ainur. It makes me wonder what role megalomania, selfish pride, and lust for power will play as the story unfolds—and what consequences they will have.

So we end up with the sense that nothing is truly evil, since even when Melkor is at his worst, he's merely the instrument of Ilúvatar. And I’m pretty sure Tolkien doesn’t even use the word evil in this section. Peculiar—no?

Nonsense. That God is able to turn even evil to eventual good does not make it any less evil.

Judas' betrayal of Christ led directly to the salvation of mankind, in Christian theology. That good came from it does not detract from its status as the most evil act in history.

What Tolkien is talking about here is that Evil will be ultimately defeated by Good. Not that Evil doesn't exist.

If Evil were able to ultimately defeat the original intentions of God, then it would be more powerful than Him.

God believes in justice on Earth. It's not perfect and it's not heavenly justice. But he approves of righteousness. There's lots of biblical passages that say so. Believers are even cautioned to obey the just rule of human rulers. But believers also know that there will never be perfect justice on Earth, there will always be evil, that the world will never completely turn to Christianity. The great unity and perfection exists only in there hereafter. (I like this about Christianity -- it's not like a religious cult where you're promised perfect happiness in the hear and now if you believe and obey. You're just given a foretaste through your communion with and praise of God of an afterlife of worshipping God.)

There are things God approves of and things He does not. I think he would approve of the just punishment of wrongdoers. I believe Clinton should have been prosecuted. My only point is that Lord knows -- and I mean that literally -- why he hasn't been. Lord knows. So that was a limited point -- that God's not all about making sure everything's perfect on Earth -- that's not his Plan. We are fallen and evil abides here. He wants us to try to prosper and be happy, of course.

"I believe Clinton should have been prosecuted."

And I believe he still shall be prosecuted.

"My only point is that Lord knows -- and I mean that literally -- why he hasn't been. Lord knows."

Perhaps part of the reason was what happened on November 5, 2002, and what shall happen in November 2004, IMHO. The unsatiated LustFerJustice vis a vis Der SchleekMeister and his feckless minions has given a certain number of Americans the desire--an almost divine inspiration--to strike out against the VileLeftists in alternate venues. Would the dissolution of the DemonRAT Party have been as hasty as it has been if Slick had've RESIGNED like he shouldda 4-6 years ago?! Probably not.

"So that was a limited point -- that God's not all about making sure everything's perfect on Earth -- that's not his Plan. We are fallen and evil abides here. He wants us to try to prosper and be happy, of course."

Bringing Clinton to Justice will NOT make life on Earth perfect...we all know that. Still, Clinton is an inarguable EVIL and for America to sit on our arses and pretend that 800-pound jackass ain't really sittin' there waitin' to be SLAUGHTERED is unthinkable to me. You recently summarized my opinion on this issue rather well on another thread, so I want you to understand this clearly...Bringing Clinton to Justice is not really about Clinton receiving what's coming to him at this point, IMHO. Bringing Clinton to Justice is what is required of America--and each individual American--as a whole in order to recapture some of the greatness that America forfeited over the last 40 years in which we've allowed the Left to set the Agenda for America!! In that respect, William Jefferson Clinton must be considered the Epitome of Evil and treated accordingly.

IMHO, God would approve...MUD

Whether The Silmarillion is good or bad history, one must keep in mind that it is not Tolkien's Silmarillion.

It was published posthumously by his son, Christopher, who had the unenviable task of trying to weave a coherent narrative out of the most publishable and less inconsistent texts. That's not to knock what Christopher Tolkien did. I doubt anyone else could have done half as well in compiling the uncompilable.

And this means what, exactly, for the upcoming discussions?

I loved The Silmarillion. Couldn't put it down.

But then most people aren't like me.

It's not a fantasy novel per se (of course, neither is LOTR, but that's off the subject). It's not strict narrative. As a result, it can be offputting to those expecting any of the above.

But if one reads LOTR and The Hobbit first - and loves them - then you can approach The Silmarillion with a sense of why these events and people matter.

And this means what, exactly, for the upcoming discussions?

Well...

1. Frankly I was trying to dissuade him - and anyone else - from making The Silmarillion his introduction to Tolkien.

I think it's a poor place to start, really. And I would hate to see anyone so put off by it that they give up on Tolkien altogether.

2. Many people are not aware that The Silmarillion as published is not the one that was floating in Tolkien's head. I think it best to ground one's self in what Tolkine really meant to put out there before delving into the mountains of literature that Tolkien left piled up in his house when he died.

Chris Tolkien has done a wonderful job bringing it all to the public and making some kind of sense of it all.

Due to its nature, however, it's not as accessible at TH or LOTR.

Many people are not aware that The Silmarillion as published is not the one that was floating in Tolkien's head. I think it best to ground one's self in what Tolkine really meant to put out there before delving into the mountains of literature that Tolkien left piled up in his house when he died.

Well, I can understand wanting to tackle The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings? before going on to The Silmarillion. But are you saying that The Silmarillion is of no use when discussing Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings?

I think what he is saying is the Silmarillion was published from notes and rough drafts, after Tolkien's passing. Though it is still very much Tolkien's work, it was not necessarily in the condition that Tolkien would have published it, maybe not as polished or artful as it might have been... but I don't think that changes its worth. It is useful, but it wasn't finished. There may have been more that was never written, and some of what was written may have just been notes that wouldn't have made it to a novel. It is something to keep in mind, not something used to discredit it. I don't think.

You'd be surprised. Try referencing The Silmarillion to answer a simple question not quite covered by The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings (say, about the Rings of Power) and see who flies out of the dark to point you down some dark, labrynthine path somewhere in the volumes covering "The History of Middle Earth."

"Oh," they'll intone, "You see, The Silmarillion that Chris Tolkien published isn't what his father had floating aound in his head. I know what John really meant..."

I just don't want to see these Tolkien Virgin threads on FR devolve into one of those ugly "canonical/non-canonical" cat fights that I've seen in other newsgroups is all I'm saying. They're no fun and a real turn-off to trying to learn anything.

Absolutely not.

I just caution against making TS one's first point of introduction to Tolkien's world.

It's less accessible - and it's all posthumous.

For those who love Middle Earth, however (as I do), it is indispensible.

Brady,

The Silmarillion has just as much legitimacy as the History of Middle Earth volumes do.

What made it into TS - as Chris wrote it - was just what was most publishable and most consistent. And as close as Chris knew he could come to what what he knew of his father's intentions for the work.

Ultimately what we're left with is an incomplete and sometimes contradictory picture because that's the state Tolkien left things in when he died.

As Martinez has noted, the only things strictly canonical - if we use that term - is what's in TH, LOTR and the LOTR appendices. Everything else has been posthumous.

We end up treating TS as something approaching canon because it's the best single reference we have for the Elder Days. I don't have a problem with that.

Neither should anyone else.

Postscript:

What informs part of my warnings is that I've known some people who jumped into The Silmarillion and were much put off by it. They were expecting a gripping fantasy narrative and what they got was something that seemed translated out of the Elder Eddas with a little bit of Holinshed thrown in.

TS remains near and dear to my heart but I try not to make the mistake of thinking that everyone will love it like I do. Or at least that they know what they're getting into when they read it.

They're more likely to appraoch it in the right frame of mind if they read and fall in love with LOTR first.

Those that don't care for LOTR - who find it long and lugubrious and overwritten - will be put off even more by The Silmarillion.

I think the canon/non-canon issue is really a secondary one anyway.

There are things God approves of and things He does not. I think he would approve of the just punishment of wrongdoers. I believe Clinton should have been prosecuted. My only point is that Lord knows -- and I mean that literally -- why he hasn't been. Lord knows. So that was a limited point -- that God's not all about making sure everything's perfect on Earth -- that's not his Plan. We are fallen and evil abides here. He wants us to try to prosper and be happy, of course.

Amen! God gave us a FreeWill, and we turned our dominion over to the Devil.

Now, God being 'Just', has to let what we chose to loose in the world, play out in this world.

I hate seeing folks blame God for bad circumstances or conditions. We invited in all the evil garbage- He has to let things go to their conclusions.
Fortunately, He sometimes extends "Grace" and "Mercy", but that is a gift, and cannot be demanded nor expected.

Also, God did NOT promise us 'justice on earth- but justice in the eternal.

He does Love Righteousness, and we do sometimes see His judgment in the world, but we CAN rely on His Justice in the Eternal Hereafter.

I disagree with you, Iguana. Tolkien said The Silmarillion was *his* most important work. Did you read what Christopher Tolkien said in the Foreword? Chris had the herculean task of selecting and arranging all the different pieces of the narrative, or as he himself put it in the foreword of The Silmarillion: " to show The Silmarillion as in truth a continuing and evolving creation extending over more than half a century - would in fact lead only to confusion and the submerging of what is essential."

All of The Silmarillion was not only floating around in Tolkien's head, but written down in various places. So, I think while we didn't get all of the Silmarillion, it is also wrong to say the one we did get wasn't the one "floating" around in Tolkien's head. It most definitely was:-)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.