# The Lord of the Rings Appendices before the silmarillion?



## Kimmie_Ris (Aug 11, 2020)

I have started reading through Tolkiens works for the first time and I'm loving it so far. I have so far read the hobbit, and I'm making my way through the trilogy. But my translation of the books doesn't include the appendices as they were sold separately for some reason. Should I buy the translated version of the appendices and read it before the silmarillion, or will i do fine without it? The next time I read them I will buy the english versions for sure, but since I have already read a lot of it in my language, I want to finish them that way first.


----------



## rollinstoned (Aug 11, 2020)

you can read the Silmarillion without them. 

BUT it is essential you do read them at some point, and in some ways they pretty much set the tone of the Silmarillion.


----------



## Halasían (Aug 11, 2020)

The Silmarillion _can_ be read without reading the appendices. The amendices add a lot of background summaries to Middle Earth and a deeper story between Aragorn and Arwen, but anything in the Silmarillion is predominitely 1st Age so is more like deep Middle Earth History for events that come in the 3rd Age. There is some additional background on the Third Age and the Rongs of Power at the end of the Silmarillion that is good and compliments the apendices, but it doesn't really matter what is read first.

I myself read the books years before the Silmarillion came out so in wanting to know more of Middle Earth I consumed the apendices, even learning the runes and Tengwer from only the info Tolkien gave us.

It sounds like the publishing company for your language version is capitalising by selling the Apendices as a standalone.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 11, 2020)

Welcome to the forum, Kimmie_Ris! You don't list your location on your profile page; may I ask what language you're reading in? It's quite interesting to learn what members in different countries have to say about translations into their languages.

One thing about the appendices: The Tale of Years is useful for keeping track of who was doing what, and when, during the course of the story.



By the way, if you'd like to introduce yourself "formally" we have a New Members forum, where you can say something about yourself, and your particular interests:









New Members


Meet and greet the newest TTF members. -- [ One thread per new member only! ] --




www.thetolkienforum.com


----------



## Kimmie_Ris (Aug 12, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> may I ask what language you're reading in? It's quite interesting to learn what members in different countries have to say about translations into their languages.
> 
> I am reading it in Swedish. It's quite interesting, there are actually two Swedish translations of the books, the original one and a newer one for the 50th anniversary of the books. I am reading the old one, because that's the one I had at hand. It's quite controversial, because the translator tends to add his own ways of saying certain things, often to add drama where he thought Tolkien was too dry. He also made a lot of mistakes with certain English phrases he didn't know, sometimes translating them into something completely nonsensical. But all in all his use of language is very pleasant I think, and he does a good job of translating the poems in a way that makes them flow. But other than that I can't really judge it until I've read it in English.
> 
> And thank you for welcoming me!


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 12, 2020)

Kimmie_Ris said:


> I am reading it in Swedish. It's quite interesting, there are actually two Swedish translations of the books, the original one and a newer one for the 50th anniversary of the books. I am reading the old one, because that's the one I had at hand. It's quite controversial, because the translator tends to add his own ways of saying certain things, often to add drama where he thought Tolkien was too dry. He also made a lot of mistakes with certain English phrases he didn't know, sometimes translating them into something completely nonsensical. But all in all his use of language is very pleasant I think, and he does a good job of translating the poems in a way that makes them flow. But other than that I can't really judge it until I've read it in English.


The original Swedish translation by Åke Ohlmarks was the second one (1959-60) after the Dutch (Netherlands) one by Max Schuchart (1956-7). And the one JRRT was most disgusted with. To quote from letter no. 204 dated 7 December 1957 in Humphrey Carpenter's 1981 "The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien":

"... The impression remains, nonetheless, that Dr Ohlmarks is a conceited person, less competent than the charming Max Schuchart. though he thinks much better of himself. In the course of his letter _[including what JRRT called "a huge list (9 pages foolscap) of names in the L.R. which he had altered"]_ he lectures me on the character of Swedish language and its antipathy to borrowing foreign words (a matter which seem beside the point), a procedure made all the more ridiculous by the language of his letter, more than 1/3 of which consists of 'loan-words' from German, French and Latin: _thriller-genre_ being a good specimen of good old pure Swedish."

Maybe someone should have told Ohlmarks that JRRT, at least in the UK, was one of the leading authorities in Old Norse ...

But anyway, it could be interesting when you compare the Ohlmarks translation with the original.


----------



## Alcuin (Aug 12, 2020)

Welcome to TTF, Kimmie_Ris.

Reading the Appendices, as others have said, is not a prerequisite to reading _The Silmarillion_. What little it says about the First Age sure makes reading _The Silmarillion_ easier, though: it’s like reading notes on an intricate school course before you plunge headfirst into it. If your interests are mainly with the feigned history of Middle-earth, you can probably escape with reading only Appendix A and scanning Appendix B. If you’re interested in languages, that would be Appendices E (“Writing and Spelling”, including pronunciation) and F (languages and “translation” from the “original”, variously referred to as Adûnaic or Westron or Common); Elthir (formerly known as Galin) is the resident expert on languages here. 

To Olorgando’s excellent post I will append this paragraph from Tolkien to his English publishers from _Letter_ 188:
I wish to avoid a repetition of my experience with the Swedish translation of _The Hobbit_. I discovered that this had taken unwarranted liberties with the text and other details, without consultation or approval; it was also unfavorably criticized in general by a Swedish expert, familiar with the original, to whom I submitted it. I regard the text (in all its details) of _The Lord of the Rings_ far more jealously. No alterations, major or minor, re-arrangements, or abridgements of this text will be approved by me – unless they proceed from myself or from direct consultation. I earnestly hope that this concern of mine will be taken account of.​In _Letter_ 228 to his English publishers Allen & Unwin, he complains that 
Ohlmarks is a very vain man (as I discovered in our correspondence), preferring his own fancy to facts, and very ready to pretend to knowledge which he does not possess. He does not hesitate to attribute to me sentiments and beliefs which I repudiate.​and he continues to complain to them about Ohlmarks in the next _Letter_ 229. _Letter_ 263 expresses a similarly jaded opinion,
The impression remains, nonetheless, that Dr Ohlmarks is a conceited person, ... though he thinks much better of himself. ​The ill feeling between Tolkien and Ohlmarks continued well after Tolkien’s death in 1973. Wikipedia, which might be at least partly reliable in this instance (it has a citation for these comments), reports that
Ohlmarks’ translation remained the only one available in Swedish for forty years, and until his death in 1984, Ohlmarks remained impervious to the numerous complaints and calls for revision from readers. After _The Silmarillion_ was published in 1977, Christopher Tolkien consented to a Swedish translation only on the condition that Ohlmarks have nothing to do with it. After a fire in his home in 1982, Ohlmarks incoherently charged Tolkien fans with arson. He subsequently published a book connecting Tolkien with “black magic” and Nazism, including fanciful constructions such as deriving the name _Saruman_ from “SA man” with an interposed Ruhm “glory”, and conspiracy theories surrounding the Tolkien Society.​


----------



## Ealdwyn (Aug 12, 2020)

Welcome, Kimmie_Ris!

Alcuin this is really interesting. I never realised there was so much bad feeling! 😲
I've never read LotR in Swedish, although I have read the Hobbit. I've just checked to find it's the 2007 Andersson/Swedenmark translation. While reading it, I wasn't really looking at the accuracy of the translation as I was concentrating on improving my (very bad) Swedish, but I do remember being immensely confused at some of the changes. For example, they changed 'Baggins' to 'Secker', which (to me) made no sense at all.


----------



## Kimmie_Ris (Aug 12, 2020)

Ealdwyn said:


> Welcome, Kimmie_Ris!
> 
> Alcuin this is really interesting. I never realised there was so much bad feeling! 😲
> I've never read LotR in Swedish, although I have read the Hobbit. I've just checked to find it's the 2007 Andersson/Swedenmark translation. While reading it, I wasn't really looking at the accuracy of the translation as I was concentrating on improving my (very bad) Swedish, but I do remember being immensely confused at some of the changes. For example, they changed 'Baggins' to 'Secker', which (to me) made no sense at all.



Cool that you want to learn swedish! 

I think that the newer translation tries to keep the meaning of the names in swedish, which gives pretty strange results. Like I said though i haven't read the newer translation. In the old one Baggins is translated to Bagger, and even though Baggins would work fine in swedish I think Bagger works well too. Most of the names actually seem fine to me, with a few exeptions.


----------



## Elthir (Aug 12, 2020)

Alcuin said:


> Elthir (formerly known as Galin) is the resident expert on languages here.




Ark! Not me under any name. *Atwe* and others rather. I'm a language fan, but my special study has been *Galadrieliana.* I am an expert regarding _*Egglador*_ however.

Anyway, I read _The Silmarillion_ in 1977 after I'd read _The Lord of the Rings_ and Appendices . . . 
and read _The_ _Hobbit . . ._ erm, can't be sure now. Old. I know I read it though.

🐾


----------



## Kimmie_Ris (Aug 13, 2020)

Both Alcuin and Olorgandos posts are very interesting! I was aware tolkien disliked the translation but I did not know how deep it went! It makes me wonder what he had to say about other translations, he seems to have cared deeply about it (which is understandable considering his knowledge of languages).

Also an update: I did order the Swedish translation of the appendices even though they were translated by Ohlmarks as well. I think I'll read the parts that relate the most to the trilogy in between return of the king and silmarillion. I also bought a translation of unfinished tales with a matching cover that I thought looked very good. I guess it's best to read that One after silmarillion?

Thank you to everyone who gave me descriptions of the appendices as well as which order to read it!


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 13, 2020)

Yes, I'd certainly recommend it. Although Elthir will have things to say about the Galadriel texts. 😁


----------



## Elthir (Aug 13, 2020)

I'll say something now (since I'm easily 🥚*ed* on) . . . if you want to know the history of Galadriel and Celeborn . . . I recommend skipping the text in _Unfinished Tales_ titled _The History of Galadriel and Celeborn._

Once read . . . you can't easily unknow it


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 13, 2020)

Kimmie_Ris said:


> ... It makes me wonder what he had to say about other translations, he seems to have cared deeply about it (which is understandable considering his knowledge of languages). ...


Wiki:
"To aid translators, and because he was unhappy with some choices made by early translators such as Åke Ohlmarks, Tolkien wrote his "Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings" in 1967 (released publicly in 1975 in "A Tolkien Compass", and in full in 2005, in "The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion")."

One of the first translations to profit from this "Guide" was the original German one by Margaret Carroux (1969-70). Here, it is the newer 2000 translation by the otherwise competent Wolfgang Krege that drew some (justified) fire.


----------



## Kimmie_Ris (Sep 7, 2020)

Alright, I've finished the silmarillion, and now my next question is this: how much of unfinished tales is in the other books published after Tolkiens death? For example I see that there's a large portion of the text about the children of Húrin. It is my understanding that the book published under that name contains all of the text from unfinished tales. 
Are there more stories in unfinished tales that can be found elsewhere? I plan on reading the other books as well and I'd rather not have to read the stories twice.


----------



## Elthir (Sep 7, 2020)

I don't have time right now for a fuller response, but my advice is to read the 2007_ Children of Húrin _before the presentation in _Unfinished Tales_.

In other words, enjoy it as a "full" story first (the long prose version of the tale in _The Silmarillion_), even if it's a constructed version.

Then 🐾 and read it again


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 7, 2020)

As Elthir posts, Christopher Tolkien presented "Children of Húrin" as a full story - so the only of the "Unfinished Tales" that got finished, in a manner somewhat similar to "The Silmarillion".

But as to the larger "rest" of UT, from page 164 to page 416 (as per my 1986 reprint paperback) it contains stories that are not reprinted elsewhere, being stories of the Second and Third Ages (except for "The Drúedain" in Part Four).

Christopher Tolkien's last two books, "Beren and Lúthien" (2017) and "The Fall of Gondolin" (2018) are a somewhat different matter to 2007's "Children of Húrin". Here, no (long) version of the tales had gotten even remotely finished, and short versions, if "finished", were highly compressed. And B&L had a long poem version (as CoH had also had). What Christopher did here is collect between the covers of single books all of his father's writings on these two topics, these writings otherwise being scattered among the twelve books of "The History of Middle-earth" (except for the three-and-a-half dealing with LoTR).

So UT is very well worth a read, if you skip Part One.


----------



## Alcuin (Sep 8, 2020)

_Unfinished Tales_ includes the heart-breaking story of “Aldarion and Erendis”, a fleshed-out lineage of the Kings of Númenor, including an extra king, the consort of the third Ruling Queen, who for twenty years usurped the rule of his own son; an in-depth look at the complicated story of Galadriel, dear to Elthir’s heart; an account of “The Disaster of the Gladden Fields” when Isildur and his three older sons died and the One Ring was lost; the first Ride of the Rohirrim when Eorl the Young rode to the rescue of Gondor and his people were given Calenardhon as their own, which became Rohan; Gandalf’s recollections of “The Quest of Erebor”, the story of _The Hobbit_:
[Y]ou know how things went, at any rate as Bilbo saw them. The story would sound rather different, if I had written it. For one thing he did not realize at all how fatuous the Dwarves thought him, nor how angry they were with me. … It was only the map and the key that saved the situation.​Finally there are Tolkien’s notes of the Nazgûl’s “Hunt for the Ring”, from the early mistakes they (and Sauron!) made regarding “Baggins” and “Shire”, to Frodo’s near escape at the Ford of Bruinen; and an account of the disastrous “Battle of the Fords of Isen” where Théoden’s son and heir Théodred was killed about the same time Éomer slaughtered the host of Orcs at the borders of Fangorn Forest where Merry and Pippin only just escaped, and Éomer’s meeting Aragorn at the North Downs of the Wold of Rohan. Then there are four short essays: “The Drúedain”, ancestors of the Púkel-Men of Dunharrow and of Ghân-buri-Ghân; “The Istari” about the five wizards, including most of what we know about the Blue Wizards; and “The Palantíri”.


----------



## Elthir (Sep 8, 2020)

Nice post Alcuin. Also, the comment below is not directed at you.



Alcuin said:


> " . . . a fleshed-out lineage of the Kings of Númenor, including an extra king, . ."




Boo. Hiss.


----------



## Alcuin (Sep 8, 2020)

There are actually two missing kings in the list in _Unfinished Tales_. Tar-Anducal was the spouse of Tar-Vanimeldë, the third Ruling Queen, who predeceased him: for twenty years he deprived their son, Tar-Alcarin, of the scepter. Tar-Anducal’s reign was considered a usurpation, and not all the Númenórean lists reckoned is rule as legitimate, and so do not count him. Appendix A of _Lord of the Rings_ recounts that Tar-Calmacil was succeeded by Ar-Adûnakhôr in II 2899, but _Unfinished Tales_ says Calmacil’s son Tar-Ardamin succeeded him for 74 years until 2899: Adûnakhôr was his son. 

The Kings of Númenor did not call themselves the “House of Elros” but rather the “House of Eärendil”.


----------



## Elthir (Sep 8, 2020)

Yes, my little hiss is (only lightly) directed at the new-ish but "unauthorized" revision to the text, adding _Tar-Ardamin_ to _The Return of the King._ I know why the revision was made, I just disagree with the decision to handle the matter this way. 

But perhaps that's a matter for another thread someday


----------

