# The start of the Silm



## Mirendabeth (Sep 14, 2004)

I started reading it, and I felt that the first couple of pages reminded me of the bible. It was like the same style of writing. did anyone else find this? (has anyone else opened the bible lol). Does the rest of the book change from this? I couldn't help feeling this, just wondered if other people had felt this. 

I also found it hard to read. So much so that I havne't managed to read it yet, I got a few pages in but got confused by the style mainly. Does anyone have any tips for reading it? It is a book that I would definately like to read, but not one that is particularly easy to read


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 14, 2004)

Mirendabeth said:


> I started reading it, and I felt that the first couple of pages reminded me of the bible. It was like the same style of writing. did anyone else find this? (has anyone else opened the bible lol). Does the rest of the book change from this? I couldn't help feeling this, just wondered if other people had felt this.



It is definitely written in a "quasi-biblical" style. Tolkien was creating a mythology for Britain out of whole cloth (as well as answering the call of many inner needs), and he wanted to convey a feeling of deep ancientry. 



> I also found it hard to read. So much so that I havne't managed to read it yet, I got a few pages in but got confused by the style mainly. Does anyone have any tips for reading it? It is a book that I would definately like to read, but not one that is particularly easy to read



You're in good company! It (like LOTR as well) is a definite stretch! You cannot boil it down to ordinary reading levels; you must stretch and grow yourself to accomodate a new level. Take it in small doses, and keep a good dictionary close at hand. You will become a better person for it, in all respects!

Barley


----------



## Astaldo (Sep 14, 2004)

Silmarillion is a difficult book but it's also fantastic. You will enjoy it. Trust me. On egood thing you can do is when you see a name that you do not remember go to the last pages and search for it. The first time I read I could not remember anything. But from the second and after reading The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, everything seemed too clear. So as Barliman Butterbur said read in small doses and you will enjoy it.


----------



## Mirendabeth (Sep 14, 2004)

Thanks! I'll definately try that when I get the chance. The main problem is that with all my Uni work, I don't get an awful lot of time to do a lot of reading anymore  But I will definately try again to read it  Thanks for the advice!


----------



## Inderjit S (Sep 14, 2004)

The Silmarillion is a very diffiicult book to read. It's style may seem a bit strange, even archaic, and different from LoTR. It is a description of the history of thousands of people, over thousands of years, and it can at time seem a little fast paced, and it certainly lacks dialogue, unlike LoTR.


----------



## William Amos (Sep 14, 2004)

The Silmarillion is more like an outline than a story.

If you notice you will see vrey little dialog in most the chapters. Its told from a 3rd person propective (I think could be wrong)

Only the Chapters about Beren and Tuor have any real interaction and conversations between characters.

All the others just describe events.


----------



## greypilgrim (Sep 14, 2004)

I agree with Barliman, in that Tolkien wanted to convey a sense of a ancientry. Here's him creating Middle-Earth from the very beginning. 

Starting from the void; 

We get our Gods, and the sun, moon, seas, and everything under the stars. Then we get our elves, men, dwarves, dragons, etc. 

Tolkien takes us from Valinor, across the sea to Middle Earth, all the way to the Shire and Bag End to Mordor and the Crack of Doom, and we learn every single person's life story in the process.

The Sil is prob. the best written book in the world...thing is, you read LoTR, then the Sil, then LoTR, then the Sil again, and only then will it all start to make sense. Flabbergasting!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 14, 2004)

One more thing: It ain't much fun! The themes are extremely dark and despairing. Cruel deaths, protracted torture, sublime beauties mutilated and destroyed, bitter blood-feuds, hatreds, ghastly atrocities (an orc pinning an elf-woman to a tree with a spear) grudges long-held, horrible consequences of broken oaths and promises — off-hand, I can't think of even _one_ humorous passage. The overarching theme of the entire saga — Silmarillion, The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings — is that of Paradise Lost.

Barley


----------



## Inderjit S (Sep 15, 2004)

It 'ain't much fun' because there 'ain't much Hobbits'-Hobbits make the novels fun.  And of course it is depressing-it is about a war that can never be won.


----------



## Mirendabeth (Sep 15, 2004)

A war that can never be won? That does indeed sound like a depressing thought 

I'm definately more motivated than I was to read it! Next problem is finding some time to sit down and have a mooch


----------



## Moonbeams (Sep 15, 2004)

I believe the beginning was deliberately ment to look like the bible. It is, after all, a story of the creation and ancient mythology of another world, another universe. The best way to describe it is like an ancient text of ours that talks about beginnings, which is the bible.
If tolkien was of another religion, it would probably look like an ancient text of whatever other religion. 

As for the difficulty in reading, honey, don't give up after a few confusing words. I'm making a presumption you are a native english speaker, so for you, it's even easier than for me, who am not. I read it with a dictionary and on-line help, to understand what's he talking about. But it was worth the effort. 
A very beautiful story.


----------



## Astaldo (Sep 15, 2004)

Well in my opinion Silmarillion is not a novel. It is a history book. All the events are described as they happened somewhere in the past so we have to see it like this. Like a true story of our past


----------



## greypilgrim (Sep 15, 2004)

Some people believe Tolkien wrote the Hobbit as a way to make a "bridge" between the Lord of the Rings and the Sil, the beginning and the end.


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Sep 16, 2004)

Mirendabeth, the Silmarillion is just a *GRRRRREAT* book!!!
It is so thrilling and exciting but also very complicated, so that one cannot and *should* not read it just once.
It is full of information. It, in fact, *IS* the mythology Tolkien wanted to create.
Of course, the published Silmarillion is just a compilation of Tolkien's various conceptions and writings - gathered and arranged by his son, and many consider this particular book as non-Tolkien at all (which opinion I personally do not share!), but in any case, it does not take away the true spirit of Tolkien's fantasy. 
Later, if you're interested, you may "enter" the History of Middle-earth" - series where you shall find the 'original' Silmarillion in all its versions.

But I would advise sth. to any new reader of the Silmarillion - just read and enjoy the story as it is - a mythical tale! 
Don't hurry to find comparisons, analogies etc. This shall come, true! ... But let it be later. 
At first, just 'live' the myth!


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Sep 16, 2004)

greypilgrim said:


> Some people believe Tolkien wrote the Hobbit as a way to make a "bridge" between the Lord of the Rings and the Sil, the beginning and the end.


And they are wrong! 
It is true that the stories, that later formed the Silmarillion, Tolkien started creating way back in the years of his youth, but in fact the first published book was the Hobbit and it had no intention to play the part of any "bridge" whatsoever. Simply because the LotR at that time did not exist!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 16, 2004)

Lhunithiliel said:


> And they are wrong!
> It is true that the stories, that later formed the Silmarillion, Tolkien started creating way back in the years of his youth, but in fact the first published book was the Hobbit and it had no intention to play the part of any "bridge" whatsoever. Simply because the LotR at that time did not exist!



I believe, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that Tolkien revised later editions of _The Hobbit,_ the better to fit in with LOTR, did he not?

Barley


----------



## Astaldo (Sep 24, 2004)

Hello Mirendabeth, have you started Silmarillion?


----------



## spirit (Sep 24, 2004)

I've never read the bible, so I don't really know.


----------



## Astaldo (Sep 24, 2004)

You mean the Holy Bible? If yes you should. Not for religion purposes but for history.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 24, 2004)

Astaldo said:


> You mean the Holy Bible? If yes you should. Not for religion purposes but for history.



You realize of course, that not everyone takes that book as true history, nor many even divine. But that's a subject for another thread!

Barley


----------



## Narsil (Sep 24, 2004)

Keep on plugging away at _The Silmarillion_. After awhile you'll get acclimated to the writing style and get sucked in. I was up until 3 am several times while reading it and was sorry to end it. I still refer to it often. The index in the back of the book is worth it's weight in gold. 

I read _The Hobbit_ and LOTR before The Sil. Then I read the Sil this past summer and just got done rereading _The Hobbit_ and LOTR again! It's amazing how much more you understand and appreciate Middle Earth after reading _The Silmarillion_. If you love LOTR then The Sil is a "must read". It really fills things in and makes things even more poignant. 

I think the story of the Elves during the First Age is fascinating but I was really taken by _The Akallabeth_. So sad..Truly "Paradise Lost".  

I think now I'll be rereading _The Silmarillion_ again soon.


----------



## Astaldo (Sep 25, 2004)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> You realize of course, that not everyone takes that book as true history, nor many even divine. But that's a subject for another thread!
> 
> Barley


Well i did not read it because its divinity but there are somethings there that I would like to know. Anyway as you said this topic is for another thread so I'm stoping it here.  

Narsil be sure that you will reread the book. I am reading Silmarillion, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings every year for the past six years.


----------



## Starbrow (Oct 18, 2004)

I too had trouble with the beginning of The Silmarillion. The parts with the Valar were hard to keep track of at first. It gets much better when the Elves come in the main part of the book, Quenta Silmarillion. The Akallabeth is good too; it's more like a history than a narrative.


----------

