# Which Tolkien writings would you consider Novels?



## cart (May 24, 2022)

the silmarillion, the hobbit, the trilogy.... and if im not mistaken the children of hurin, beren and luthien and the the fall of gondolin

are all the stories that one could call novels... correct? that is they are not short stories, poems or notes/clarifications...

Is this correct?

if so... out of the children of hurin, beren and luthien, and the fall of gondolin... which would most consider the most epic... of the epic fantasy genre novels?

when i look at reviews its all (ofc) very highly rated, and a glance at their plots all seem like they could all be great... but which of these 3 seems closest in an nature to the trilogy which you may consider high/epic fantasy.... which is most epic of those 3 or any that I am unaware of? As the hobbit is more of a bed time story and the silmarillion writing style is more biblical in nature.

Perhaps as a bonus question.. what are the best short stories in your opinion?


----------



## Ealdwyn (May 24, 2022)

cart said:


> the silmarillion, the hobbit, the trilogy.... and if im not mistaken the children of hurin, beren and luthien and the the fall of gondolin
> 
> are all the stories that one could call novels... correct? that is they are not short stories, poems or notes/clarifications...
> 
> ...


I agree about the Hobbit and LotR. I'm not sure I'd class the Silmarillion as a novel, as it doesn't have the structure of a novel, but neither is it a collection of distinct short shories, as the plot and themes are not independant of each other. I suppose I'd have to describe it as episodic writing, that is, a single story that's split into a variety of smaller, self-contained tales. By extension this would include the Narn, B&L and FoG.

Epic fantasy and high fantasy are two completely different things. A story can be one or the other or both at he same time. High fantasy concerns the degree of world-building, and all Tolkien's ME writings are high fantasy. Epic fantasy describes a heroic journey of a person/group of persons. LotR is both high and epic fantasy, as is the Hobbit, the Narn, B&L, FoG, and some (but not all) of the other Silm stories - e.g. _Of the Flight of the Noldor_ is epic & high fantasy, _Of the Sun and Moon_ is high fantasy but not epic. But there's some blurring of lines generally in the Silm stories and YMMV on this. 

I don't think you can have a "most epic". A story is either epic (by definition) or it isn't.


----------



## Olorgando (May 24, 2022)

cart said:


> the silmarillion, the hobbit, the trilogy.... and if im not mistaken the children of hurin, beren and luthien and the the fall of gondolin


CoH, of the three "Great Tales" books (2007, 2017, 2018), is the only one that comes close to a novel, a completed story. B&L and FoG are, as Christopher Tolkien himself states, collections of the many variants of these tales that can be found spread over several volume of HoMe (as is the case with many episodes surrounding the "Great Tales"). He himself concedes that there is nothing in B&L and FoG that has not been published before. Much of CoH had also previously been published in UT as "Narn I Hîn Húrin", but not all of it. But the additional material *completed* the story (and possibly filled in some blanks), something that was not possible in the same way with B&L and FoG.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 24, 2022)

Good point on epic/high fantasy, Ealdwyn. The Encyclopedia of Fantasy has a brief entry on Epic Fantasy:



https://www.thetolkienforum.com/threads/where-to-begin.30293/#post-553454



It also mentions world-building as an important aspect of high fantasy in the respective entry on that subject. And there are articles on various other types to be found, such as Dynastic Fantasy, of the sort written by David Eddings or Raymond Feist, or I suppose George Martin.

I guess it depends what cart means by "epic"; as it is, I'm not sure, so we'll have to wait for clarification.

The same with "novel": if it means only a long continuous work of prose fiction, then Children of Hurin, as presented by Christopher, would qualify, but the other two would not.

However, if we talk about Tolkien in terms of genre, I wouldn't classify any of his works as "novels", but rather _romances_, a useful distinction. The novel, beginning perhaps with Defoe, is a mimetic form of fiction, portraying "real life", as opposed to the romance, which among other things features improbable events and coincidences, and can contain supernatural or unnatural elements that would be considered out of bounds in a novel.

Not that the two forms don't overlap, at least chronologically; even in the heyday of the novel, in the 19th century, romance was still being practiced -- witness Scott, or Hawthorne, who felt obliged in his preface to _The House of Seven Gables _to defend his use of the form, in the face of the prestige of the novel, which, because it was newer than romance, was thought of as more advanced and "grown-up".

This attitude toward the older and more "juvenile" form had by no means disappeared by the 20th century, as can be seen by some of the negative, or uncomprehending, reactions to the work of its greatest revivalist, Tolkien. But as the critic Northop Frye said of Scott, "If [he] has any claims to be a romancer, it is not good criticism to deal only with his defects as a novelist".

Oh, one more (minor) point: there are a number of collections of short stories with connected and interdependent plots or themes -- or characters, as I'm sure you're aware. Even novels, such as the Interwar spy novels if Alan Furst, where characters meet and interact, or might merely see each other in passing, like Tuor and Turin.

Edit: I see Mr. O posted while I was typing, in my laborious one-fingered way, but I'll leave my post as it stands.

Second edit: For more on romance, and its history in the context of fantasy, see:


https://sf-encyclopedia.com/fe/romance


----------



## cart (May 24, 2022)

Ealdwyn said:


> I agree about the Hobbit and LotR. I'm not sure I'd class the Silmarillion as a novel, as it doesn't have the structure of a novel, but neither is it a collection of distinct short shories, as the plot and themes are not independent of each other. I suppose I'd have to describe it as episodic writing, that is, a single story that's split into a variety of smaller, self-contained tales. By extension this would include the Narn, B&L and FoG.
> 
> Epic fantasy and high fantasy are two completely different things. A story can be one or the other or both at he same time. High fantasy concerns the degree of world-building, and all Tolkien's ME writings are high fantasy. Epic fantasy describes a heroic journey of a person/group of persons. LotR is both high and epic fantasy, as is the Hobbit, the Narn, B&L, FoG, and some (but not all) of the other Silm stories - e.g. _Of the Flight of the Noldor_ is epic & high fantasy, _Of the Sun and Moon_ is high fantasy but not epic. But there's some blurring of lines generally in the Silm stories and YMMV on this.
> 
> I don't think you can have a "most epic". A story is either epic (by definition) or it isn't.



well im fairly aware im not knowledgeable in the classification and/or clarification of fiction.. as a whole as i simply had nothing to do with it. (short of tolkien and animorphs in the 3rd grade)

I mostly just want a suggestion as to what (now knowing what i know) what would be a sick 2nd era maybe 1st era line of tales one might suggest to feel that sense of a tale or story being told that is riveting and page turning and written more in the fashion of the lotr rather than there and back again or the biblical vibes of the silmarillion.


Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> I guess it depends what cart means by "epic"; as it is, I'm not sure, so we'll have to wait for clarification.
> 
> The same with "novel": if it means only a long continuous work of prose fiction, then Children of Hurin, as presented by Christopher, would qualify, but the other two would not.
> 
> ...



my definition of epic was half a joke but now a just cold hard facts and i mean epic in the same way that a gamer in discord might use it.. just some badass caca. maybe something concerning the 2nd age? i feel like the YT and 1st age were dealt with differently.. but then again i never got to the numenoreans.. basically i just want something that is fresh and new to me that is a page turner children of huron i will certainly read..
but i just want some of that lotr vibe again.. the struggle, a great evil, and a preference for that writing style over say the hobbit and the silmarillion..

in regards to the various comments on classification and the like, as thankful as i am for the lineation and explanation... im quite frankly not overly concerned about epic vs high or w/e else. again i have bookshelves of non fiction and a tiny tolkien corner.. so these conversations are one's i can appreciate but am not in a rush to take part in.. if i did get into another fictional world it would be dune though (huge tangeant) but read 1 of the books after i finished retrun of the king and then learned there were... like alot of Dune books.. alot alot and was like woah.. to much .. much like Tolkien has "alot alot" i learned shortly after and dived in.

edit: fresh delivery btw


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 24, 2022)

You have a lot to delve into there.😀

The History can be heavy going, if you're looking for a "page-turner", though there are some in BoLT for sure, if you can accept the archaic style. But of course, LOTR is always worth rereading.

If you want a non-Tolkien recommendation, I enjoyed the Medkemia series by Raymond Feist -- just don't expect another Tolkien.


----------



## cart (May 24, 2022)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> You have a lot to delve into there.😀
> 
> The History can be heavy going, if you're looking for a "page-turner", though there are some in BoLT for sure, if you can accept the archaic style. But of course, LOTR is always worth rereading.
> 
> If you want a non-Tolkien recommendation, I enjoyed the Medkemia series by Raymond Feist -- just don't expect another Tolkien.


Yea, the HoME purchase was mostly because I seemed to have read a number of them judging by their bindings and thus must have enjoyed it when i was rather deep in the rabbit hole.. being mass market and some of them being ruined by a former cat of mine.. I figured since I was "upgrading" my current books (nearly all of which are mass market as I was young and just wanted to read it) but as you get older and still get books.. there is this urge to (if possible) get the hardcopy versions of w/e is released or snag a deal on a special edition of a book you may already own. So, I figured I would go with the best versions I could find, while still being reasonable in price. I don't need a 1st edition this or that, but would be quite happy some nice hard copies. While this always sounds odd to others perhaps maybe here it might be understood to some extent.. there is something very nice about reading books that have paper that _feels _good like soft or how the ink settles in perfectly.. and perhaps my oddest quirk is the not quite intoxicating but enjoyable smell of older hard copy books say 60-100+ years old... or maybe i just like sniffing glue.... who knows

also on the way is this book, but i suspect some bends and it is noted a small tear is on the jacket (which i can account for 0 books I own that the jacket looks nicer than the book itself) is the (special?) edition 50t anniv of the hobbit but for 25$ as the lister thought it was something other than what it was. and even i don't know if it is the reprint of the original 50th annvi edition or the original.. though either way ill be quite satisfied (though in actuality i do find the very similar green version to be more attractive, but thought this would be a fun edition to the bookshelf)

and snagged a 1st edition of the atlas of middle earth for what might actually be one of the most affordable options I encountered when looking at the various iterations of this book.. the softcovers always being like say 20-30$ and the hardcover $150 or 90$.... and a book of maps esp maps that traverse two pages would be annoying to deal with as a companion piece or reference as i'd toss my vape on one side and my phone on the other just to keep it open holding my place as i hold the book im actually reading (though these atlas books seem to have quite a bit of text in their own right) even has the slipcase. and the copy linked looks like what the seller described the books condition to be in. I wonder why these atlas hardcovers are so damn expensive...
also nice that it is a cloth as I don't own many clothbound books..

with all that said.. the hobbit has countless versions that all look incredible.. not too many hardcover/special edition versions of the hobbit that are not very handsome books to have in the hand or on the shelf.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 24, 2022)

You'll get no argument from _me _on that score.😄


----------



## Olorgando (May 25, 2022)

cart said:


> and snagged a 1st edition of the atlas of middle earth for what might actually be one of the most affordable options I encountered when looking at the various iterations of this book.. the softcovers always being like say 20-30$ and the hardcover $150 or 90$....


OUCH! I have a paperback second edition (©1991 Karen Wynn Fonstad, published by Grafton - a HarperCollins imprint - 1992).
Very likely part of the huge haul of JRRT-themed books I got my hands on in the vacation my wife and I spent in Ireland - traveling there by own car (big trunk - filled to bursting on the return trip). It has a price sticker on the back showing "F. Hanna Ltd. - G£13.90", which I'm guessing means Irish Pound, or Punt. Its value was always lower that the Pound sterling, but appears to have been a bit higher than the US$. Now with 30 years of inflation since I bought the paperback, that might come out to a bit over 20 $ now, but I'd guess not 30. But 90 or 150 $ sounds quite a steep price to me - except that books with small printings can be quite high-priced. My 2002 Alan-Lee-illustrated edition of LoTR was UK £ 25 each, or €38.80 on the one price tag that is still legible. But LoTR surely has much larger printings ...


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 25, 2022)

Checking Amazon just now, the revised edition lists for $14. 94 new, and there are several on the "Used" list for under four bucks. Hardcovers are much higher, of course.

One edition I've not seen is this one, from 2017 or 2017, depending on who you believe:

This contains the same content as the 1991 revision, but is apparently about half an inch wider ("8.66") and is listed as having 224 pages, compared to the 210 pages in my own version. A couple of reviews I saw mentioned higher paper and printing quality; it certainly looks like coated paper, judging by this brief flip-through:


----------



## cart (May 25, 2022)

Olorgando said:


> OUCH! I have a paperback second edition (©1991 Karen Wynn Fonstad, published by Grafton - a HarperCollins imprint - 1992).
> Very likely part of the huge haul of JRRT-themed books I got my hands on in the vacation my wife and I spent in Ireland - traveling there by own car (big trunk - filled to bursting on the return trip). It has a price sticker on the back showing "F. Hanna Ltd. - G£13.90", which I'm guessing means Irish Pound, or Punt. Its value was always lower that the Pound sterling, but appears to have been a bit higher than the US$. Now with 30 years of inflation since I bought the paperback, that might come out to a bit over 20 $ now, but I'd guess not 30. But 90 or 150 $ sounds quite a steep price to me - except that books with small printings can be quite high-priced. My 2002 Alan-Lee-illustrated edition of LoTR was UK £ 25 each, or €38.80 on the one price tag that is still legible. But LoTR surely has much larger printings ...


oh yea i didn't pay that.. that was just the common prices for every iteration of the atlas in hardcover form.. shipped i paid $35.. which seemed fair enough to me (esp for the 1st edition in decent shape and with it's cover) sorry for not making that clear

@Squint-eyed Southerner yea i saw the 2017 edition but as u said the hardcover prices are just strangely high relative tot he softcover
so again $40 for the 1st edition in decent shape and with it's cover (which i very much hope doesn't vanish... they really need to do something about slipcovers vanishing on their own.. it's a real problem) to protect the cloth bound book
the soft ones again as the reason of purchase is essentially to be a companion piece of sorts to my readings i would not want the pages doing their own thing as the book won't be in my hands (besides reading her notes which there seems to be a great deal of


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 25, 2022)

I'd recommend acquiring the revised edition at some point, as it incorporates information taken from HOME. It's widely available, and as I said above , can be picked up for next to nothing these days. Well worth having.


----------



## Ealdwyn (May 25, 2022)

I have the 1991 paperback. Are the changes significant in the revised edition?


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 25, 2022)

That is the revised edition; first edition was 1981. As far as I know, no changes have been made since the second edition, except for covers. What the additional 14 pages have in the one I showed above, I have no idea.


----------



## cart (May 26, 2022)

cart said:


> Yea, the HoME purchase was mostly because I seemed to have read a number of them judging by their bindings and thus must have enjoyed it when i was rather deep in the rabbit hole.. being mass market and some of them being ruined by a former cat of mine.. I figured since I was "upgrading" my current books (nearly all of which are mass market as I was young and just wanted to read it) but as you get older and still get books.. there is this urge to (if possible) get the hardcopy versions of w/e is released or snag a deal on a special edition of a book you may already own. So, I figured I would go with the best versions I could find, while still being reasonable in price. I don't need a 1st edition this or that, but would be quite happy some nice hard copies. While this always sounds odd to others perhaps maybe here it might be understood to some extent.. there is something very nice about reading books that have paper that _feels _good like soft or how the ink settles in perfectly.. and perhaps my oddest quirk is the not quite intoxicating but enjoyable smell of older hard copy books say 60-100+ years old... or maybe i just like sniffing glue.... who knows
> 
> also on the way is this book, but i suspect some bends and it is noted a small tear is on the jacket (which i can account for 0 books I own that the jacket looks nicer than the book itself) is the (special?) edition 50t anniv of the hobbit but for 25$ as the lister thought it was something other than what it was. and even i don't know if it is the reprint of the original 50th annvi edition or the original.. though either way ill be quite satisfied (though in actuality i do find the very similar green version to be more attractive, but thought this would be a fun edition to the bookshelf)
> 
> ...


Well in came in better shape than i was expecting.. i do wonder what that little red square on the back bottom right of the book means.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 26, 2022)

Usually indicates a book club edition. You may find information on the copyright page, but sometimes there isn't any.

Update: this should help:









The Hobbit (1987) - TolkienBooks.US







www.tolkienbooks.us


----------



## cart (May 26, 2022)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Usually indicates a book club edition. You may find information on the copyright page, but sometimes there isn't any.


Well this is a very helpful site: https://www.tolkienbooks.us

The red stamp Book club editions as u said.. and the trade version had none. Oddly the green 1973 collectors edition and 88' paperback all share the same isbn which i don't know if that is common or not. And as cool as it looks, the 73' version is still i think the more attractive of the two.

But with that said and $22 spent... not much to complain about considering I am finally able to replace the one I had been reading which is a late 90s early 2000s mass print that has also is a window into my past of when i owned a cat that was in heat and was told not to snip him till he was X weeks/months old. So I'm glad I can finally put that away and read a book that does not have hints of.. well horny cat. Not to mention all the images and the forward itself and the Tolkien's drawings might be worth the price of admission alone.



Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Usually indicates a book club edition. You may find information on the copyright page, but sometimes there isn't any.
> 
> Update: this should help:
> 
> ...








Don't know if you've seen this guy's channel.. but man this guy takes book/Tolkien book collecting to something beyond a hobby. Impressive, though I suspect there are collections in this forum that may outshine his (heck the people with the 1st edtions 2nd print of the US release of the trilogy that im aware some own here pair that with a nice version of the Hobbit and the Silmarillion... and you may be more than half way there as it is.

While I would never buy a book to keep it sealed I am interested in seeing some of the more impressive Tolkien collections be in books or signed letters that I know are owned by some here. I did a search but it was just a a listing of books, but a showcase of Tolkien related books and/or memorabilia if perhaps it snuck past my search criteria would be very interesting, and I'd assume I'm not the only one that might be interested in some impressive collections that some of us just are unlikely to every own whether it be due to financial restrictions or in my just not very much of a collector of anything.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 26, 2022)

I've watched a couple of his, and there are a number of other people with Tolkien Book collections on YouTube. There are some threads here on various collections, as well; try scrolling through the "Other Related Topics" forum, for instance; there's a lot in the Book Covers thread:









Tolkien Book Covers


I was leafing through my copy of 'The Book of Lost Tales II' earlier and was really struck by its cover - It's a picture by Roger Garland of the Fall of Gondolin and shows the Walls of Gondolin being attacked by Tolkien's earlier 'mechanical' dragons and a swarm of orcs coming out of the...




www.thetolkienforum.com





though these things pop up in some of the other forums too.🙂


----------



## Olorgando (May 27, 2022)

cart said:


> ... though I suspect there are collections in this forum ...


You're right there. Here are links to some posts in the "Tolkien Book Covers" thread S-eS mentioned:
(I thought there had been more posts with bookshelves, but those might be in other threads as S-eS mentioned)









Tolkien Book Covers


Well, I think you will never guess which Tolkien book it is. It is Soviet edition and this dragon is amazing. One of my favourites




www.thetolkienforum.com













Tolkien Book Covers


I just "stumbled" on this tread - very nice contributions by all of you (particularly you, Alice) and an excellent idea from Erestor Arcamen to start this! :) I'll add my 5 cents here if I may. Herewith the Dutch LotR paperback edition (easily 50+ years old) that introduced me for the first...




www.thetolkienforum.com













Tolkien Book Covers


I just "stumbled" on this tread - very nice contributions by all of you (particularly you, Alice) and an excellent idea from Erestor Arcamen to start this! :) I'll add my 5 cents here if I may. Herewith the Dutch LotR paperback edition (easily 50+ years old) that introduced me for the first...




www.thetolkienforum.com













Tolkien Book Covers


Boy, that last one brings back memories.




www.thetolkienforum.com


----------



## cart (Jun 2, 2022)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Checking Amazon just now, the revised edition lists for $14. 94 new, and there are several on the "Used" list for under four bucks. Hardcovers are much higher, of course.
> 
> One edition I've not seen is this one, from 2017 or 2017, depending on who you believe:
> 
> This contains the same content as the 1991 revision, but is apparently about half an inch wider ("8.66") and is listed as having 224 pages, compared to the 210 pages in my own version. A couple of reviews I saw mentioned higher paper and printing quality; it certainly looks like coated paper, judging by this brief flip-through:


So my atlas finally came in. The softcover is much more vibrant than of the photos I've seen online that all look washed out and the books itself is in fine condition. Even the cover isn't so bad beyond a couple small tears. And most importantly when i open it to whichever page.. it remains on that page.. which crated the hassle of finding an affordable hardcover of the atlas to begin with. Can't say I have anything I can complain about regarding any of my Tolkien related purchases


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 2, 2022)

What's the last pic '-- bookmarks?


----------



## Annatar (Jun 2, 2022)

Numenor seems to have moved a bit and enlarged?

Your new version:






vs. my old version:






Which is more coherent?
Seems like both are by Karen Wynn Fonstad...
I find it quite confusing now. Which version is actually the newer one, and how are the partly serious deviations justified?


----------



## cart (Jun 2, 2022)

Annatar said:


> Numenor seems to have moved a bit and enlarged?
> 
> Your new version:
> 
> ...


Well mine is the 1981 print so in other words the 1st Atlas that Fonstad had released.. so I would suspect that any later iteration (well really the revised editions) would be more accurate.

Edit: In fact, until i saw this picture in my book I have never seen a map of arda that looked like this.. with your observation of Numenor also catching my eye. Since I don't own revised editions.. which are revised for a reason.. and I suspect she explains her reasons quite well since her Atlas is so highly suggested (not that I am aware of any alternatives that are in print.)


----------



## Annatar (Jun 2, 2022)

That is, Tirion, Tol Eressea and Numenor etc. were moved much further north.
But why? And do the old maps still exist in parallel in the newer edition? After all, the version I posted also shows more lands in the east and south.
Here I would definitely be interested in the details of these deviations. I suppose Fonstad has at least given some explanations in the preface?

Edit:



cart said:


> Well mine is the 1981 print


To make the confusion complete: I thought your picture was from the new 2017 version?


----------



## cart (Jun 2, 2022)

Annatar said:


> That is, Tirion, Tol Eressea and Numenor etc. were moved much further north.
> But why? And do the old maps still exist in parallel in the newer edition? After all, the version I posted also shows more lands in the east and south.
> Here I would definitely be interested in the details of these deviations. I suppose Fonstad has at least given some explanations in the preface?


which do u own?

https://www.tolkienbooks.us/ot/maps/atl

this is the one i own:




__





The Atlas of Middle-earth (1981) - TolkienBooks.US







www.tolkienbooks.us




also happens to be the 1st print (though i don't think there were any changes from 1st to 9th print)

after 9 prints it was revised in 1991:
Revised to reflect the newly available information from The History of Middle-earth series; typeset chiefly as for the 1981 First Edition. Includes detailed maps of Middle-earth and surrounding areas for The Silmarillion, The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit with commentary and a new foreword by Karen Wynn Fonstad.

Though perhaps your question has been answered?

@Squint-eyed Southerner they were indeed! I figured some nice tolkien vibbing bookmarks would go well with the (alot) of money I have recently spent on tolkien books. better than scraps of paper and junk mail... and a bit facnier than my old go to of post it notes.


----------



## Annatar (Jun 2, 2022)

Ah, okay, then it's the other way around. I kind of assumed you had the latest edition, but you bought the first one. I'm sorry...

I myself have probably the 1991 version.


----------



## cart (Jun 2, 2022)

Annatar said:


> Ah, okay, then it's the other way around. I kind of assumed you had the latest edition, but you bought the first one. I'm sorry...
> 
> I myself have probably the 1991 version.


Thats what i was figuring when u referred to mine as "new" and inferred you meant it was the 2017 print. 
Honestly the only reason I even have the 1981 print is because it was the cheapest hardcover of the Atlas I could find.. the hardcovers seem to get just a few prints if they get more than 1.... and cost upwards of $120.. and I wanted it as a reference material while I was reading and thus wanted a hardcover so I could open it up to the map I wanted and not have to pin the pages down and that took me to 1981. But with all that said it is in fabulous shape for a 1st print 1st edition and as @Squint-eyed Southerner suggested I am likely to get a softcover of the newest iteration at some point, but for my purposes this will do just fine even if it is not as accurate as one might hope. 

(kind of reminds me when i was in uni and i'd go cheap and get the 10th edition of some textbook when the class called for the 12th edition.. it always got the job done)


----------

