Matt (Matt) says:
(Posted March 8th, 2008 at 4:22 pm)

First of all, The Silmarillion was not a “press release” or after thought. It was a history of early Middle Earth that Tolkein wrote in different stages. In fact, he wrote some of the stories way before LOTR.

Having read The Hobbit, LOTR, The Silmarillion, The Lost Tales, and Children of Hurin in that order I can tell you that you do not need to read the last three to understand the first two. In fact, I read The Hobbit and LOTR for the first time in 6th grade, then a novice reader that didn’t understand half of what was going on in the novels. However, as I matured and reread the novels I came to understand the central themes and allusions made in the text. The fact that it is not quite clear that Gandalf is an Istari does not hurt the novel. It doesn’t even hurt the novel not knowing that Sauron is just the demon lieutenant of the original Fallen Angel bad guy Morgoth. These novels can stand alone as something enjoyable in themselves, but if you are a Tolkein fan then you can read all of them and have a full understanding of the entire saga of Middle Earth.

The worlds are in fact maintained if you are a mature enough reader to understand what Tolkein does.

Matt Knicl (Matt Knicl) says:
(Posted March 8th, 2008 at 4:57 pm)

Like I said above, there is nothing wrong with reading all the books if you have the time and wherewithal to get into them. It’s not a matter of maturity, but a matter of taste. I’m proposing that there are easier, less confusing fantasy epics out there.

Vince Crosby (Vince Crosby) says:
(Posted March 10th, 2008 at 1:07 am)

Actually, the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings are the only complete works Tolkien published, even though that world had been evolving from 1918 ’til his death in, I believe, 1973. Every other volume, from the Silmarillion onwards, was published posthumously and, therefore, in an incomplete form. I believe Tolkien was in the process of rewriting the Silmarillion to include the alterations in his universe that he had been making throughout the last forty-odd years. In fact, most of the book reads like a synopsis because that’s the latest documentation Tolkien had: plot outlines, epic poetry, and annals that were sometimes half a century old and therefore incompatible with the published works.

As for the History of Middle-Earth’s twelve-volume series, that’s just a documentation of the evolution of that world from its much simpler form in 1918 to its form just before his death. In fact, if you read the volumes, you’ll notice that Christopher Tolkien arranged them in chronological order. Since his stated job is to publish the materials and not make alterations or write his own stories, these materials are presented in their original, incomplete, and often contradictory form. Still, to Tolkien buffs, they’re interesting to read.

And, at the end of the day, Tolkien was a professor first, author second, and those priorities show in how long it took him to write this, and why it still wasn’t finished. He seemed insistent on creating an entire world in which the stories were based, and so put a great amount of work in detail that would never appear in his published works, save for a one-sentence reference. That’s just a difference of priorities, and is really tied more to his personal interest in mythology than his interest as an author.

Not a criticism of your comments, just some extra information from someone who obsessively read this stuff.

Matt Knicl (Matt Knicl) says:
(Posted March 10th, 2008 at 1:18 am)

Hey Vince! No, thank you for your comments. It’s important to know the works’ initial presentation and its relation to the author for everything you read. So much happens behind the scenes (like with publishers and whatnot) that we need to take those into account (like how Britishisms were removed from the first Harry Potter when published in the States).

Josh Schneider (Josh Schneider) says:
(Posted March 13th, 2008 at 2:58 am)

I’ve no problem with your opinion, I’ll say that from the start. However, your argument against Tolkien mismanaged a lot of facts about the author and his works:

1) Making the assumption of Sauron as a demon and Gandalf as an angel is just an assumption you made because you’ve spoken to people about Lord of The Rings and they have spoken to you of things such as the Istari. Reading at face value, with absolutely no knowledge of the Silmarillion, (this is actually a good chunk of readers) Gandalf can easily be accepted as a wizard of immense power and Sauron as a warlock with a penchant for evil. In fact, in the Hobbit, if I’m not mistaken, Sauron is referred to as a necromancer. If the Silmarillion had never found publication, people would have made the assumptions that Tolkien often implied in his works, simply that Gandalf was a wizard of immense power. And Sauron in desperate need of visine (yes, that was a joke, pause for effect).
2) Any attempt or desire to read the Silmarillion would be for love of someone’s work, whether it’s his world, his style, or simply what drew Tolkien: language, to writing something so comprehensive. If you feel you have to read it to understand the Hobbit or LotR then that’s your prerogative as a reader. Tolkien wrote those two books to be published and sold and that is it. The rest was simply for love of his own creativity and his own work, stuff that he never expected to see publication.
3) When criticizing the inability to read LotR without the Hobbit, remember this one little fact: The only reason LotR was written was because readers demanded a sequel. As it’s meant to be a sequel (even if it’s written as a continuation) then you should never even hear about Lord of The Rings before first knowing the Hobbit. If you had, or you expect you do, it’s because of media and popular opinion thanks to some movies. You can hardly blame an author because his sequel became more popular than his original.
4) You refer to Bone as, in essence, better fantasy. Not easier to read, not easier to love, but better. I think you miss a couple of points here and offer the worst comparison to Tolkien in order to encourage your own argument. First, Bone was originally written as a comic, regardless of whether or not you can buy it as a tome now, meaning you’re comparing two different forms of the same media which will OBVIOUSLY give credence to your argument for concise (comics are meant to be concise, it’s simple an Tolkien was anything but concise). Instead you may have thought to compare Tolkien to, say, another fantasy book author (Donaldson and C.S. Lewis off the top of my head are good comparisons while still keeping them in the same formula). Second, a giant generation gap. The Hobbit found publication in 1937 after being written in the 1920’s. Contemporary authors have learned from previous fantasy authors (of which Tolkien is in the highest regard as far as creating a world and level for authors to use as a standard; case in point, look at how Tolkien’s effected the word orc). Third and last, Bone generates a lot of its value in character development in being a comedy, something Tolkien never attempted, again offering the apples and oranges comparison you seem so thrilled to make.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s your personal choice to regard whomever as your favorite. But Jeff Smith is by no means a better fantasy author than Tolkien. It’s just a poor comparison and one hard to argue objectively on either side.

Matt Knicl (Matt Knicl) says:
(Posted March 13th, 2008 at 3:49 pm)

Hey! Very good points (love the visine thing - I can picture the Ben Stein commercial).

It is a somewhat arbitrary comparison and came about as I read Fellowship and reread Bone at the same time. I found there was a lot of similarities, most likely because Smith drew upon Tolkien’s works. I guess my bitterness toward LotR is brought about by the fans themselves, who (I hope I use this term correctly) “owned” me with knowledge from texts I didn’t know existed really only to show that they knew that outside knowledge. You are right though, Tolkien gets a bum wrap due to what followed.

And I have an much higher opinion of LotR now that I have read Michael Moorcock’s Elric stories and will express that in a future post.