# I didn't like the Silmarillion



## ckelly06 (Apr 18, 2011)

There, I said it. It's not flame bait or anything, I just thought it was too dense and frankly boring.

I liked The Hobbit and LOTR, maybe it's time to read some of the other Middle Earth books. Some of them look pretty promising.


----------



## At Dusk I Reign (Apr 18, 2011)

Dense? Certainly. That's one of the reasons I love it: it isn't obvious. Tolkien was a philologist, he created Middle-earth merely as a playground for the languages he created. Commercial considerations played no part in the act of creation, something he sadly failed to pass on to his son. I love the Lord of the Rings, but the Silmarillion will always occupy a higher shelf in the bookcase of my heart.*

* Too wet? Oh well, I'm in that kind of mood...


----------



## Behelit (Apr 18, 2011)

I just so happen to be reading _The Silmarillion_. Roughly 5 chapters in and I feel like I'm reading the book of Genesis (closer to that of Norse mythology though.) That isn't to dish any dirt; it is difficult to take in so many names and associations in such a short span. I have felt the need to re-read it in hopes of better retaining or understand but have yet to do so. I'd prefer to complete the book, I think it will sink in better once I have the big picture. 

I agree with the usage of the word 'dense', bearing little to no negative connotation in mind.

I went into the book not expecting a story that of the likes of _The Hobbit_ or _The Lord of the Rings_ but more of a mythological background or a companion to the previously mentioned titles. I think if you were expecting or wanting it to be a prequel, then you probably will be disappointed.


----------



## At Dusk I Reign (Apr 18, 2011)

Behelit said:


> I just so happen to be reading _The Silmarillion_. Roughly 5 chapters in and I feel like I'm reading the book of Genesis (closer to that of Norse mythology though.) That isn't to dish any dirt; it is difficult to take in so many names and associations in such a short span. I have felt the need to re-read it in hopes of better retaining or understand but have yet to do so. I'd prefer to complete the book, I think it will sink in better once I have the big picture.
> 
> I agree with the usage of the word 'dense', bearing little to no negative connotation in mind.


It's dense, I don't deny it. But bearing in mind that Tolkien was hoping to create a mythology for the English, that's no real surprise. It's certainly a less enjoyable read than Lord of the Rings, and maybe it only has relevance to those who want to know what came before the events of LotR, but (however perversely) I quite enjoyed it. Maybe I just need to get out in the fresh air a bit more.


----------



## Behelit (Apr 18, 2011)

I'd say I'm more in the same ship as you, Dusk. I am enjoying it so far, but I am also noting the fact that I am having difficult digesting it properly due to the density of information involved.


----------



## At Dusk I Reign (Apr 18, 2011)

Behelit said:


> I'd say I'm more in the same ship as you, Dusk. I am enjoying it so far, but I am also noting the fact that I am having difficult digesting it properly due to the density of information involved.


If it ain't floating your boat, Behelit, throw it to one side. We've got a limited span on this planet and I doubt anyone's ever thought in their dying moments: 'I really wish I'd carried on reading that book.' Dump it. Find something that'll give you real pleasure. Regardless of what old coves like me might say, Tolkien isn't the be-all and end-all. Have fun while you can.


----------



## myrddin173 (Apr 18, 2011)

The three major works in the Middle-earth legendarium are each written in completely different ways.  The Hobbit is written as a classic children's fairy tale.  LotR as a standard fantasy epic.  The Silmarillion however is basically written as a history book, which is definitely not for everyone.  I enjoyed it quite a bit but then I am a total LotR nerd and plan on being a history major.


----------



## Telcontar (Apr 18, 2011)

I love it myself, but I can easily see where it would fail to appeal to others. It is often dry and much is left to the reader to try and imagine to any detail.


----------



## Amorus (Apr 19, 2011)

I really enjoyed it because it provides a history of how everything came to be. References are made in both the book and the movies regarding the ancient days of ME. What is a Balrog and who is Morgoth?  It helps to answers these questions. Tolkien was a huge fan of Norse mythology.  I found his creation of Middle Earth to be extremely interesting, especially to see how much this influenced his thinking. I agree that some will love it and some will not.


----------



## Digital_Fey (Apr 19, 2011)

Even at the peak of my LotR mania, I couldn't finish the Silmarillion. All attempts to do so since have failed; I bought my own copy recently and it's still sitting unopened on the shelf. The style is indeed very dense and imitates that of many ancient texts, being more focused on imparting a sequence of events than describing fight scenes and using dialogue. However, since this is exactly what Tolkien intended - creating a sort of simulation mythology - it's a very impressive body of work. It's just not awfully accessible for modern readers >.>


----------



## Amanita (Apr 19, 2011)

Well, I prefer real history books where I can get inspiration from  to those of made-up worlds. 
Therefore I've never tried to read it. If I were an absolute fan of Tolkien's work and world I probably would, but I don't care about it enough. I think that he was a very good writer and LotR is a very well-done story in many aspects but it has never touched me emotionally at least not much. I have no idea why that is, though.


----------



## Ophiucha (Apr 19, 2011)

For the exact same reasons you have for hating it, I happen to quite like _The Silmarillion_. I think Tolkien is a bit of a shite storyteller, using characters and storylines as an excuse to show off his languages and showcase his world. _The Hobbit_ was far better, perhaps because it was far less his intention, but it is a bit weak perhaps simply due to the lack of substance. _The Silmarillion_, in its bulk, does not hide what it truly is: a history textbook.


----------



## Gustopher (Aug 31, 2012)

I love the Silmarillion because it has so much of a re read value. The first time I got it from the library and couldn't get through it before I had to take it back. The second time I finished it and really enjoyed it, and every time since I've read and captured a lot that I missed the earlier times around. I've read a lot of excellent novels and stories and textbooks and myths and there are very few that are worth reading a second time, much less a third or fourth and beyond.

I love mythology and history and I love fantasy and the Silmarillion blends so many wonderful things that I love together in a really meaningful way. That's why I love it.

P.S. I have the hardback version with the art by Ted Nasmith and it is a wonderful addition to the text. Simply beautiful.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Sep 1, 2012)

ckelly06 said:


> There, I said it. It's not flame bait or anything, I just thought it was too dense and frankly boring.
> 
> I liked The Hobbit and LOTR, maybe it's time to read some of the other Middle Earth books. Some of them look pretty promising.



Dude, I didn't ever really like _Lord of the Rings._ I just read it because apparently you're supposed to. I haven't even considered reading Silmarillion. (Which as I understand it isn't so much a book as Tolkien's extended story bible.)


----------



## Gustopher (Sep 3, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Dude, I didn't ever really like _Lord of the Rings._ I just read it because apparently you're supposed to. I haven't even considered reading Silmarillion. (Which as I understand it isn't so much a book as Tolkien's extended story bible.)



Its more than a story bible, and it definitely isn't a novel, but something sort of in between. More like a fictional, fantastical narrative history.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Sep 4, 2012)

To me, the _Silmarillion_ isn't a story; it's history (albeit a fictional one). I don't expect it to serve the same function as a story. I wouldn't complain that a book on Russian history is boring; it's supposed to inform, not entertain.

This isn't to say that everyone should crave that same information, but anyone reading the _Silmarillion_ and expecting a story is going to be disappointed.


----------



## Cleio (Sep 4, 2012)

I think the Silmarillion is probably not meant to be read cover to cover, although there are certainly people that enjoy it that way. I'm fascinated with the great detail Tolkien managed in developing all aspects of Middle Earth, and I've enjoyed picking and choosing bits of the Silmarillion to learn more about those things that interest me.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 4, 2012)

I found it did help in explaining some of the references made by several characters in LOTR that I was left confused and thinking about.

But on a note, and I'd like to point out that The Silmarillion was put together by JRRT's son (CT) after his death as a compilation of JRRT's ideas, musings, and histories of LOTR. CT also edited the Children of Hurin into a full length novel based on his father's framework. 

I sort of think of The Silmarillion as the equivalent of my guide notes and notebook, rather than as a novel in itself.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 4, 2012)

I enjoyed the Silmarillion last I read it. And I can see where people are coming from with it being "dense" and a "history book". The style of writing felt very King James Bible to me, so somewhat familiar. I still think of it as a story though. It just requires more from the reader. You have to use your imagination to fill in the gaps.


----------



## shangrila (Sep 5, 2012)

I didn't like it either. It felt like one giant infodump, which got old real fast.


----------



## Aidan of the tavern (Sep 5, 2012)

I agree with master Clayborne.  The sleevenotes of the book read as follows:  



> The Silmarillion is not a romance, not a fairy story, not a fictitious history contrived for its own sake.  It is a work of unparalleled and sustained imagination, a sombre vision in the mode of myth and legend of the conflict between the desire to dominate the world and other wills and the creative power that proceeds from the development of inherent inner talents.



That is not to say you have to like it, I'm just pointing out that it is not meant as a consistent, continuous narrative story, and so it should not be read as such.  You either like it for what it is or you don't.  Personally I like it.  I agree that it can be difficult to keep track of everyone and it is dense by nature, but I find it interesting.  The story of the creation at the start I think is really cool, and the way the valar interact with the elves, and how we get an overview of everything panning out according to the designs of Iluvatar (and sometimes not).  It feels like I'm delving into an ancient, fabled tome.  Thats just my view on the matter.


----------



## Ireth (Sep 5, 2012)

^ This. Though, while not primarily romantic in tone, there is definitely romance _in_ there, and it is very important. Beren and Luthien are among the most important couples, along with Thingol and Melian. Even the Valar and Maiar get a bit of romantic action -- check out Tulkas and Nessa's wedding, and the unrequited love story of Tilion and Arien.


----------



## Bluesboy (Mar 26, 2015)

Some people here said that Silmarillion is a history book for the world of Tolkien. I'd actually say it's kind of a Bible, rather than a history book (and considering how many people actually read the Bible, I'm not surprised Silmarillion doesn't get read that much). The writing style is very 16th century English, which I adore, but it can be rather confusing at times (English is not my first language). As people pointed out, it's not a story book, it's more of an explanation of what happened before LotR. Informative, not engaging.


----------



## goldhawk (Mar 26, 2015)

It's better to think of the Silmarillion as a collection of short stories than one novel. I liked it. I didn't find it that dense.


----------



## MineOwnKing (Apr 6, 2015)

Well, In Tolkien's defense, it _was_ written about 100 years ago.

The use of names is overwhelming, but if you can get past that and focus on the story there is an innocent beauty that is captivating.

I am always drawn to the battle between Luthien and Sauron. Even though much is left to the imagination, I love how she brings him out of Tol-in-Gaurhoth with her power.

The imagery of Sauron beguiling the Numenoreans, building a huge furnace and sacrificing men is a terrifying image.

One of the strangest things to me was the fact that the elves were always so petty. Even Galadriel was among the group guilty of murder, when her people stole the boats to go after the silmarils.  

Can you imagine Melkor feeding Ungoliat the gems and his horrid cry of pain?  

The imagery is stark and forever imbedded in my brain.


----------



## goldhawk (Apr 6, 2015)

MineOwnKing said:


> One of the strangest things to me was the fact that the elves were always so petty. Even Galadriel was among the group guilty of murder, when her people stole the boats to go after the silmarils.



That's one version. In another, Tolkien says she crossed the ice. In a third, she cross in a small boat with Celeborn at that time, and so, fell under the Ban.


----------



## Ireth (Apr 6, 2015)

goldhawk said:


> That's one version. In another, Tolkien says she crossed the ice. In a third, she cross in a small boat with Celeborn at that time, and so, fell under the Ban.



I've never heard that third version. From what I know, Celeborn was one of those who never saw Aman. He lived in Doriath with Thingol and Melian, and that's where he met Galadriel after the Noldor returned to Arda.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 7, 2015)

Just because Tolkien's early drafts happen to have been published, I don't think it's fair to consider them actual version of his stories. Just like every writer ever, Tolkien rewrote his stories multiple times and made different choices each time. Past choices aren't legitimate alternate versions of his stories any more than any author's early drafts would be considered a legitimate version of the published story. They can be enjoyed for what they are, but shouldn't be confused with the most finished and polished version that was actually published as The Silmarillion. 

Only the very earliest versions of his stories, which you can read in HOME, were written about 100 years ago. The finally published version of The Silmarillion was still being rewritten right up until his death, which is why Christopher had to finish the job. That's significantly less than 100 years ago. 

The Silmarillion reads like a mythological cycle, which is exactly what it was intended to be like. If you enjoy mythological literature, you should enjoy The Sil. Personally, mythology has been one of my great loves since elementary school so The Sil is my favorite by far of Tolkien's writings.


----------



## goldhawk (Apr 7, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> The finally published version of The Silmarillion was still being rewritten right up until his death, which is why Christopher had to finish the job.



Tolkien never considered his work finished. He viewed his stories as a tool to study his languages. And tools can be changed.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 7, 2015)

goldhawk said:


> Tolkien never considered his work finished. He viewed his stories as a tool to study his languages. And tools can be changed.



I don't agree with that assessment. If the stories were just tools, there would have been no need to radically rewrite them so many times over the years. Tolkien had a true love of story as is clearly shown in On Fairy Stories. There's no doubt his love of languages and stories went hand in hand, but the stories were far more than tools.


----------



## goldhawk (Apr 7, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> I don't agree with that assessment. If the stories were just tools, there would have been no need to radically rewrite them so many times over the years. Tolkien had a true love of story as is clearly shown in On Fairy Stories. There's no doubt his love of languages and stories went hand in hand, but the stories were far more than tools.



I'm not talking about how most people view stories; I'm talking about Tolkien's view. For Tolkien, stories were a way to explore language.


----------



## Ireth (Apr 7, 2015)

goldhawk said:


> I'm not talking about how most people view stories; I'm talking about Tolkien's view. For Tolkien, stories were a way to explore language.



I'm sure it started out that way, but it's entirely possible his views changed as he kept writing, so the stories became more than just tools. Why else would he spend half a century fleshing out the world of Arda with so many revisions that had little if anything to do with the elvish languages he originally wrote the trilogy for?


----------



## acapes (Apr 7, 2015)

_For me_ I find the Sim more successful as a reference guide rather than a fictional narrative.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 7, 2015)

goldhawk said:


> I'm not talking about how most people view stories; I'm talking about Tolkien's view. For Tolkien, stories were a way to explore language.



I'm talking about Tolkien's view as well. It's very clear from his writings that his stories were much more than just a way to explore language to him from quite early on.


----------

