Conference noted::sf

If you're expecting something similar to LOTR, I'd pass it by. "The
Silmillaron," as I remember, are basically a series of stories/Middle
Earth legends with little or no interconnection except the common
Middle Earth world. From my reading of it, I suspect that Tolkien
either wrote the stories for amusement or more likely, as a
personal framework/guideline for book(s) he was planning to later 
write. I doubt whether he'd be very pleased with the book as published in
its present form (on the other hand, it's an exercise in futility second-
guessing what a writer might have wanted done with unpublished works).

If you're a sincere Tolkien fiend, you may find this book interesting, 
but *not* if you're expecting a coherent story. BTW, his son did do
some work on the stories (editing, eliminating redundancies, etc;), but
the book is still J.R.R.'s

either NUTMEG or WOODIE has their time set wrong as response one was written 
13 minutes before zero.

Would the time zones matter? I'm in WO. Eastern time.

- Rob

Re .3: yes, the timezones matter, if they're different... The notes and
replies get inserted with their timestamps offset by the amount indicated
in the 'zone.

As for the original question - well, I enjoyed the Silmarilion, but I've
only read the whole thing once. The creation myth I read several times,
and found it marvelous (if you're setting up a gaming world and want an
idea for a creation myth, try this one). The whole book is indeed a collection
of myths and legends about Middle Earth, and if read in the same frame of
mind that one would read Bullfinch, comes across rather well. (Tolkien is
a master of the Norse and Germanic myths, on which he based a good bit of
his fantasy world.)

Enjoyable? Alas, the nature of many myths is to be tragic in the extreme,
as well as rather ponderous and full of import. The presence of the hobbits
in the other works adds a much-needed "human" touch, an everyday light-
heartedness we can deal with in a long narrative. The characters in the
Silmarilion tales are all near-deities, the forefathers of the elves and
the first of the great human heroes, and their great trials and sorrows
are considerably larger than life. I wouldn't say the tales were enjoyable
(is "King Lear" enjoyable?), but some are very dramatic and many can give
some insight into the history that the LOTR characters know.

-b

I also enjoyed the Silmarillion.  But I only read it twice, as opposed to
a couple of dozen times for the Lord of The Rings.  I'd say that if you
managed to work your way through the appendices to The Return of the King,
then you'll probably enjoy the Silmarillion.  If you didn't find them
interesting then you'll probably be disappointed with the Silmarillion.

While we're on the subject, I wonder whether anyone who's read both works
can clear up an apparent discrepancy I think I found.  One of the tales
in the Silmarillion mentioned an Elf-lord named Glorfindel.  In fact,
Tolkien killed Glorfindel off in this story.  Now, in The Fellowship of 
the Ring, Frodo, Strider, and the rest of the hobbits had to battle the Nine
Riders as they proceed toward Rivendell -- at the Fords of Bruinen.  They
are aided in the nick of time by Gandalf (although they didn't know it
then) and an Elf-lord named, you guessed it, Glorfindel.

Is this a mistake?  Or is Glorfindel just a common Elvish name?  Certainly
it could have been the same Elf, given the long life span of Elves...

JP

Hell, I managed to make it through DHALGREN, so after that, I guess I can wade 
my way through anything. I'll give  it a try.

- Rob

You made it through Dhalgren?  You're a better man than I...

JP

RE: .7

I even liked DHALGREN. It certainly does keep you thinking though.

- Rob

RE: .6-.8

	_DHALGREN_ wasn't that bad, even though _SILMARILLION_ is better.

	Now what you need to do is read all the way through _FUTURE SHOCK_
	a time or two, that I couldn't take.

	Hey, this sounds like a good new note... books that people can't
	stand to finish.

  re .5, Glorfindel

  From _A Reader's Guide to The Silmarillion_, by Paul H. Kocher, note 3
  to chapter XII, Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin:

    ...  The Rivendell Elf may possibly be a descendent of his, or one of
    his kindred named after him.
    
  From the dust-cover of the same book:
  
    ...  Tolkien worked on _The Silmarillion_ from the beginning of his
    writing life to the end and considered it his most important work.
    It is a complex book, rich in the fabulous legends of Middle-Earth.
    
  You would have to be a Tolkien fan to enjoy _The Silmarillion_, and if
  you are, you should read it.  The major part of _The Silmarillion_, the
  Quenta Silmarillion, is more or less a complete story.  Tolkien wrote
  lots more fragments about Middle Earth that were not incorporated into
  that book.  Some of these were included in _Unfinished Tales_ and another
  book the title of which I don't remember.  Tolkien wrote and rewrote a
  number of stories, and they weren't all consistent with each other.
  It's tough keeping straight a multi-millenia history of a fictional world!
  
--Simon  

    Speaking of dead authors who keep publishing, J.R.R. Tolkien is more
    prolific in death than while he was alive.  Of course, he did write all
    that stuff, and his son is just much better at getting his works
    published.  Or maybe I should credit the publishers instead.
    
    --Simon
    

    I tend to believe JRRT didn't publish all that stuff because he thought
    it wasn't publishable ... certainly not by his standards.  I suspect
    that if he were still alive, most of the stuff published since his
    death would still be in his personal notebooks, and not on the
    bookshelves.
    
    ... Bob
    

    And to quibble about a small point, JRR Tolkein was extensively
    published, but largely in non-fiction - his academic analyses of
    historical texts were many and diverse, including a somewhat
    controversial collaberative series of essays on the Bible.
    His fiction pieces (Farmer Giles of Ham, etc.) antedate the trilogy
    in composition, but were published after it.
    
    I think he would have written and published much more, but he had
    a day job - and holding a chair at Oxford is usually enough to keep
    most geniuses fully occupied.  Bob Bailey suggests that Tolkein would
    not have published the Silmarillion - and he's probably right. But I
    for one and I suspect a vast many others are overjoyed that his son
    chose to do so.  There are many parts of it that exceed the beauty of
    prose found in the trilogy itself, and reveal a compelling if not
    maniacally obsessive vision of an epic saga being woven and born
    in the modern world.
    
    There are some visionary dreams of such inner beauty that their origins
    in fiction or reality are irrelevant. It doesn't matter that Tolkein's
    epic legend arose from his own imagination, rather than from a
    collection of cultural legends and vaguely remembered myths. What
    the Silmarillion and Trilogy taught me is that it is possible for
    a beautiful saga to stand on its own internal merits - and who cares
    if its origins are factual or fantastic?
    
    - Max