# How many times have YOU read the Silmarillion?



## Mr. Istari (Nov 2, 2007)

Hey guys,
I'm just finishing up my first actual read through, front to back, of _The_ _Silmarillion._ It was a lot better than I expected and a very pleasant read I must say (and this is coming from someone who absolutely hates reading to begin with). I plan on reading it many more times to come to catch the little things that I missed on the first run through too. So how many times have YOU read through the sil?


----------



## Aglarband (Nov 2, 2007)

The Silmarillion is a lot better the second time through. I realized alot of stuff I missed. I tend to read Beren and Luthien every now and then. It's one of the best stories in the book, maybe ever.


----------



## Mr. Istari (Nov 2, 2007)

Yeah I know there's a lot of stuff I missed in there (as in the Beren and Luthien chapter). It's quite a lot of information to take in all at once. It wouldnt surprise me if I still missed something after 12 or 13 times through it.


----------



## YayGollum (Nov 3, 2007)

Hate to read? Craziness! Anyways, I am pretty sure that I've only read the thing twice. Maybe three times. But then, I retain trivial knowledge very well. Yeah, it's not such a bad book. I'm not such a large fan of any particular story, mostly just particular characters. Feanor, Mim, Eol, Mel, a few others.


----------



## Gothmog (Nov 3, 2007)

I can't say how many times I have read the Sil. But it is the same amount of times that I have read LotR and the Hobbit (I had all three at the same time so started reading them together). I do know that I need to replace my copy as it is falling apart.


----------



## Mr. Istari (Nov 3, 2007)

YayGollum said:


> I'm not such a large fan of any particular story, mostly just particular characters. Feanor, Mim, Eol, Mel, a few others.



I have to agree that I like Mim too. Plus he runs funny! 
(well at least in my head he does)


----------



## Majimaune (Nov 3, 2007)

I think I have read it 3 times. First time cause I wanted to, second so as to understand it better and third cause I had nothing else to read.


----------



## Mr. Istari (Nov 3, 2007)

Yeah I'll be starting up reading the sil for the second time probably starting tomorrow... I really need to catch up on a few things that I had missed the first run through.

P.S. Maji, I feel like I'm stalking you on these threads.


----------



## Majimaune (Nov 3, 2007)

The second time does help understanding of points cause you know whats happening so you can concentrate on other things.

P.S. I know, kinda scary... Theres just not much more to post on.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Nov 9, 2007)

I voted 6-10 as I am about to read it for the sixth time, but the problem with this is that in several years time, I will have read it over 10 times.

I like the Sil, although not as much as UT. I dislike the abridged version of Turin, and just skip it and read the full-length when I read UT.


----------



## Majimaune (Nov 9, 2007)

I skip both now and just read Children of Hurin


----------



## Starbrow (Nov 10, 2007)

I'm not really sure how many times I've read the Sil, but its probably at least 6. I agree with Maj. Read Children of Hurin for Turin's story; it is much more vivid and descriptive.


----------



## Mr. Istari (Nov 11, 2007)

Will do! Well... I will whenever I have the chance to pick up a copy.


----------



## Halasían (Nov 11, 2007)

I read the Silmarillion a couple times front to back, but have read parts of it more often.


----------



## Mr. Istari (Nov 11, 2007)

What parts would those be Hal?


----------



## Majimaune (Nov 12, 2007)

Mr. Istari said:


> What parts would those be Hal?


The good ones of course.


----------



## Mr. Istari (Nov 12, 2007)

Haha thanks. That was very enlightening.


----------



## Majimaune (Nov 13, 2007)

Mr. Istari said:


> Haha thanks. That was very enlightening.


I'm good at that sort of stuff


----------



## Arvedui (Nov 13, 2007)

I haven't got any ideas on how many times I have read _The Silmarillion_. Too few, though...


----------



## Bucky (Dec 21, 2007)

Every time I read Tolkien, I do the same thing (except last time).

I start with The Hobbit, then TLOR's, then The Silmarillion. Then Unfinnished Tales.......

Last time, I read them in chronological order, from First Age to Third Age.
But that was after The Children of Hurin came out, so I was into part of The Silm already......

When The Silm first came out, I read it 3 times just to make sense out of it. 

All together, I guess I've read it about 25-30 times.


----------



## Illuin (Jun 1, 2008)

> from Majimaune - _I skip both now and just read Children of Hurin_


 
Yeah, I have an ebook and I actually spent a lot of time inserting sections from other books chronologically into _The Silmarillion_ to make it complete. The entire _Children Of Hurin_ was inserted in place of the _Of Turin Turambar_ chapter, with _The Silmarillion_ continuing right after Morwen dies. In _UT_, the _Of Tuor And His Coming To Gondolin_ is inserted in the proper place. _The Fall Of Gondolin_ material from _BLT_ is inserted. Most of _Numenor_ and _Akallabeth_ is complete with _Aldarion And Erendis_ and such. Fun project.  It’s all safely backed up on an external just in case.


----------



## Prince of Cats (Jun 2, 2008)

You should safely back it up on a web server


----------



## Ingwë (Jan 14, 2009)

I have read the Silmarilion six times. It is my favorite book! I like it more than anything else, namely the Lord Of The Rings, Bulgarian literature, other fantasy, etc. I know it is a bit complicated, but to me that's the charm of it! I've read the whole of UT only two times, but every time I read Sil, I read the UT-chapters related to it.


----------



## Bucky (Jan 19, 2009)

Illuin said:


> Yeah, I have an ebook and I actually spent a lot of time inserting sections from other books chronologically into _The Silmarillion_ to make it complete. The entire _Children Of Hurin_ was inserted in place of the _Of Turin Turambar_ chapter, with _The Silmarillion_ continuing right after Morwen dies. In _UT_, the _Of Tuor And His Coming To Gondolin_ is inserted in the proper place. _The Fall Of Gondolin_ material from _BLT_ is inserted. Most of _Numenor_ and _Akallabeth_ is complete with _Aldarion And Erendis_ and such. Fun project.  It’s all safely backed up on an external just in case.



*How do you account for the inconsistencies from BoLT to the newer stuff? (to say nothing of the dreadfully archaic style)

I find it very disturbing from an 'historical' sense......

BTW: nice quoting, huh? *


----------



## Illuin (Jan 19, 2009)

> Originally posted by Bucky
> _How do you account for the inconsistencies from BoLT to the newer stuff? (to say nothing of the dreadfully archaic style)_
> 
> _I find it very disturbing from an 'historical' sense......_


 
Since it’s just for me, I overlook the inconsistencies and narrative styles. I just like having every piece of the story neatly fit together and chronological. It’s just a different way to see things. Sometimes I read the books backwards. I’m into that kind of thing .


----------



## Bucky (Jan 20, 2009)

Well, I didn't mention, but since Unfinished Tales came out, I always read The Silmarillion myself by throwing in 'Tour's Coming To Gondolin' & then 'The Narn' in their proper places......

But as one who views Middle-earth as an historian, boLT is just too inconsistent with the others for me - plus those 'thees' & 'thous' they sayeth.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 20, 2009)

The Syl depresses me! I consult it for background info, but that's it.

Barley


----------



## Mike (Jan 20, 2009)

The Silmarillion is an impressive work, but I just can't bring myself to go back to it after the first time. I really wish we could have gotten Tolkien's finished version, rather than this compilation with bits filled in by Christopher Tolkien and (of all people) Guy Gavriel Kay. Unfortunately, it wasn't to be...

Really did enjoy _The Children of Hurin_, though.


----------



## Alcuin (Jan 21, 2009)

_Silmarillion_ is fundamentally different from _Lord of the Rings_. _Lord of the Rings_ is a straight-through tale, with the character and plot development of traditional nineteenth and twentieth (and twenty-first) century novels. It’s an outgrowth of the old epics, like _Illiad_ and _Odyssey_, or the Arthurian romances, where a single character or group of characters moves through the entire telling from beginning to end. 

_Silmarillion_ is more like a collection of myths. If I dig up a copy of Greek mythology by Edith Hamilton or Thomas Bulfinch, I’m not going to read it from start to finish, unless I’m being tortured by a high school English teacher. (Paid my dues on that score long ago.) However, I might well dig about to reread the story of Jason and the Argonauts, or Perseus and Andromeda, or decide that I need to recall the seven labors of Hercules, and enjoy each of them thoroughly; I might even decide to read another because the first one whetted my appetite for such tales. 

There’s no single, story-unifying hero in _Silmarillion_. Eärendil is a hero; Beren and Lúthien are heroes; Turin is a hero; Tuor is a hero; Finrod is a hero; but none of these are *the* hero of _Silmarillion_. Frodo Baggins is *the* hero of _Lord of the Rings_. Now, Aragorn is also a hero, and Sam is a hero, and Gandalf, and Legolas and Gimli, and Boromir and Faramir, and so forth; but Frodo Baggins is a *single protagonist* about whom the story is woven, with interesting (and highly evolved and important) side-stories about Aragorn, Merry, Pippin, Éowyn, and many others that give the story its epic flavor: after all, Tolkien studied stories like _Beowulf_ and _Sir Gawain_ about single protagonists, as well as innumerable others, and _Lord of the Rings_ fits into that mold. (Personally, I find the “side-stories” about Aragorn, Pippin, and Merry lots more interesting than the “main” story, The Quest for the Mountain of Fire, which I find rather depressing.) 

_Silmarillion_, which lacks a single protagonist, jumps a bit from story-line to story-line: it _isn’t_ a single story, and despite decades of work, Tolkien couldn’t hammer it into a single story. Think about it: when we discuss _Lord of the Rings_ in TTF, we cite this passage or that one to demonstrate points; when we discuss _Silmarillion_, unless it is a specific _Silmarillion_ quote, we’re all over the map: we use twelve volumes from _History of Middle-earth_, _Children of Húrin_, _Letters of JRR Tolkien_, otherwise unpublished Tolkien material from _Vinya Tengwar_ and other literary magazines examining the material in the libraries, published interviews, and so on.

If you think about best-selling novels, they’re almost all of the same nature as _Hobbit_ or _Lord of the Rings_: they’re about a single protagonist (and perhaps his companions) as they go out to wrestle with the problems threatening them and their world. Rarely are they about the struggles of many different people over a long time: that’s more like history, even in today’s literature: we read about those in books about wars, politics, and so forth, not usually fiction.

_Lord of the Rings_ and _Silmarillion_ are two different kinds of literature. _Hobbit_ and _Lord of the Rings_ are traditional novels. _Silmarillion_ is more like a collection of short stories; but in fact, it’s the tip of an iceberg, with seven-eighths of the material submerged.


----------



## Illuin (Jan 21, 2009)

I guess because I grew up studying Bible history and it’s literary forms, I felt right at home with The Silmarillion. I absolutely loved it (still do). However, if I could be granted a wish; I would wish for a completed, authentic, J.R.R. Tolkien only Silmarillion; comprised of maybe three or four volumes (scrap HoME, UT, and CoH), written in the narrative style of The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings. I would give away my house and my cars for that (and continue the payments myself).


----------



## Ingwë (Jan 22, 2009)

Haha! I'd join you with my parents'  houses if that could finish the Sil!
However, I wouldn't like to see it in the narrative style of The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings. I like it so much because it is somehow like a history book, not like a novel. That's what is charming!


----------



## ltnjmy (Feb 5, 2009)

I have read The Simarillion an upteenth number of times - it is my favorite of all of Professor Tolkien's works.

The History of the Elves and the Edain discussed in this marvelous work is sometimes tragic, sometimes heroic and continuously moving for me.


----------



## The Tall Hobbit (Feb 9, 2009)

I've read the entire book three times, but I've read some of the individual stories many more times.


----------



## Bucky (Feb 11, 2009)

Ingwë said:


> However, I wouldn't like to see it in the narrative style of The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings.QUOTE]
> 
> *I would.....
> 
> Children of Hurin in spades.....*


----------



## Raven (Apr 5, 2009)

By now i have read it twice, but would really like to do it again. It's clearly one of my favourite books and, besides LotR and Hobbit, the only book i have read more than once.


----------



## Voronwen (Apr 5, 2009)

The Tall Hobbit said:


> I've read the entire book three times, but I've read some of the individual stories many more times.


 
Same here, for the whole thing. But, Akallabeth..? Many *many* times. Too many to count.  

I was explaining to a friend just today how it's kind of like a comfort ritual. The same goes for the various versions of The Drowning of Anadune, and a few other things of that nature here and there, there are just some things i could never, ever, _ever_ get enough of...  

I love poking around in all the Appendices (ie. in LOTR) and things like that, as well. It's the historian in me. And anything to do with names, and the languages (although i am not fluent in any of them, *yet*). Call me crazy.


----------



## The Tall Hobbit (Apr 5, 2009)

Voronwen said:


> I love poking around in all the Appendices (ie. in LOTR) and things like that, as well. It's the historian in me.


I've always thought it a shame that the The Silmarillion didn't include a First Age "Tale of Years" such as the Second, Third, and early Fourth Age "Tale of Years" found in Appendix B of LOTR.


----------



## Voronwen (Apr 5, 2009)

The Tall Hobbit said:


> I've always thought it a shame that the The Silmarillion didn't include a First Age "Tale of Years" such as the Second, Third, and early Fourth Age "Tale of Years" found in Appendix B of LOTR.


 
Though i am very much a Second Age girl..  I'd have to agree!


----------



## Withywindle (Jul 19, 2009)

Just reading over some of the comments on this thread (I´ve been away a long time - not in prison you understand, just away from the Middle Earth fantasy!). I see a lot of people bewail the fact that we don´t have a complete and continuous Silmarillion narrative; whether in the same style as the actual Silmarillion, but more fleshed out, or rather in a full prose style like LotR.

Personally, I couldn't agree less. Firstly, the fragmented nature of the narrative is its real appeal. Tolkien chose to draw us into ME at the time of the War of the Ring. That is our reference point, where we situate ourselves chronologically as it were. It is necessary, therefore, that the ancient history of ME has precisely that feel: a mixture of incomplete history mingled with myth. Had we a complete narrative of the Elder Days, our focal point would be divided between two different eras and then that would shatter that unique illusion that Tolkien created of allowing us to enter his world at the point he chose, and yet look back on some 7000 years of history and aeons more of pre-history just as the characters in the LotR could look back.

Secondly, the fact that we are offered only scraps and incomplete histories does not prevent us from entering fully into the drama of events and indeed individual characters, despite the scant characterization provided. Feanor fascinates me more than any other character in ME history and yet the amount of text dedicated to him or the events surrounding him amount to no more than an average-sized chapter from LotR.


----------



## taylspin (Jan 3, 2010)

I've read it somewhere between 3-5 times when I was 14. Anyway, the second run-through is the best, I agree. The first was probably the worst for me because I didn't understand it. I actually had to take notes to keep track of some of the names! But it was all worth it in the end, and it is one of my favorite books still today.


----------



## Confusticated (Jan 3, 2010)

The Silmarillion actual book, maybe 4 or 5. This isn't counting the multiple versions and partial ones published later in HoMe, of which I have read all, some portions more than once. For those who havent read the Quenta, Later Quenta, first Sketch or the Annals associated with them, let me say it becomes confusing to keep things staight at times. On the other hand, it can be worth it to get new info, take a scholarly approach or for the enjoyment of reading it. There are also the Lost Tales, but these are so drastically different from Sil that no inter-version confusion results. I highly recommend Lost Tales for all Sil fans.


----------



## David (Jan 9, 2010)

I read it more than once, I read it twice. And I still didn't get all the details (it tends to get blurry after reading 5 hours non-stop on a cold winter's evening.


----------



## CelandirsArcher (Jan 9, 2010)

I don't know how many times I've read the Sil. 13 times, maybe. You need to read it a lot to get it.... You know what I mean. 

Hello from Austrailia!


----------



## Elbereth (Jan 14, 2010)

I hate to admit it but I have only read the Silmarillion once! 

The reason for this is because 5 or more years ago, I loaned my Sil book to a friend of mine...and then he never gave it back. (well...actually it is alot more complicated than that....my friend had a crush on me...then I met my husband and as a result of that new relationship I lost touch with that friend because we stopped hanging out.) So I no longer have my book to reference or read. 

It is very sad.


----------



## Bucky (Jan 15, 2010)

The Tall Hobbit said:


> I've always thought it a shame that the The Silmarillion didn't include a First Age "Tale of Years" such as the Second, Third, and early Fourth Age "Tale of Years" found in Appendix B of LOTR.



*There are 'Tale of the Years' for the First Age on 'The Encyclopedia of Arda', but imho, certain dates are most definitely guesswork on their part. But, it's pretty good & better than nothing. I would certainly suggest checking it out. *


----------



## Confusticated (Jan 15, 2010)

There is also Annals of Aman, and Grey Annals, published in Home 10 and 11. These are written in the 50s. The earlier1930s Annals of Valinor and of Beleriand are published in HoME 4 and 5.


----------



## Bucky (Jan 15, 2010)

It's totally shocking how few times so many folks have read The Silm........


----------



## iasc (Jan 18, 2010)

I'm reading it for the first time now
I like it a lot so far


----------



## FeyFeaofFeanor (Jan 18, 2010)

I was reluctant to finish The Silm because if I ever finish it, there would be no more interesting Tolkien lore that I can discover.  I've only read up until Quenta Silmarillion and re-read again from the beginning until I finish Quenta Silmarillion (again).


----------



## Starbrow (Feb 2, 2010)

Don't worry. If you finish the Sil and want more, you can always get into the Book of Lost Tales and the History of Middle Earth books.


----------

