Slashdot Mirror


New Tolkien Book Released 'The Children of Hurin'

Zoolander writes "Christopher Tolkien has completed the last book of J.R.R. Tolkien from notes left from his father." The ultimate question is how much of a quality difference will there be; for instance the difference between Dune and Dune: House Atriedes is a pretty big gap. But in my experience, Christopher Tolkien has always taken a good, cautious approach when it comes to his father's work so here's to hoping.

14 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. Same Difference by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the difference between Dune and Dune: House Atriedes


    Good analogy. The difference between, say, The Fellowship of the Ring and any Christopher Tolkien followup (except perhaps the Silmarillion) is about as big.

    JRR Tolkien and Frank Herbert were visionaries. Their books are legendary because they're so complete, so consistent, they're practically holographic. While those authors were also brilliant editors, especially Tolkien whose main gig was (as is well known) Oxford English Dictionary editor. Their (genetic, and thereby literary) heirs are undistinguished from a vast host of other second or lower tier of "visionary" authors, and have no special editing talent - nor have acquired any at their cashin publishers. While they also operate at a disadvantage while writing outside the original cultural contexts that produced those seminal works for a different audience.

    Ironically, both Middle Earth and Dune are epic tales of the original forefathers of our times (Dune less obviously, sorry for the spoiler). A magical time when a unique individual arrived to set the worlds on the path that led to today's mundane, if relatively safe, existence. Both Tolkien and Herbert themselves portrayed themselves as mere humble quoters of the original stories, originally told by the great actors themselves. Their stories resonate with generations of the public partly because we understand that great storytellers are part of great stories which are part of great ages, come once in a long while, and cannot bequeath their talents and opportunities to their children.

    On the bright side, both The Lord of the Rings and the Dune trilogies are so good that they can be reread often over a lifetime, delivering new rewards each time. Reading those later "extensions" is a waste of time that could better be spent rereading the original.
    --

    --
    make install -not war

  2. Re:Dune House Books by Tx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, I think Brian Herbert needs to learn the difference between "character" and "caricature". I admit I did read *all* of the BH Dune books nevertheless, because I'm a sucker, but Frank Herbert's most offhand scribbles are worth more than that crap.

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
  3. Re:Written to Spec by Zocalo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nargothrond ruined, dragonfire and orcs all around, our hero living in the wild as a bandit hunting monsters, reclaims birthright, slays dragon, gets the girl, lives happily ever after... that (unfortunately) is Hollywood.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  4. Dune prequels by voislav98 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A much better combarison would be the new Dune novel, Hunters of Dune, rather than the Dune prequels, since it's supposed to be based on the notes by Frank Herbert, while the prequels (Dune: Houses and Butlerian crap) were written completely from scratch and are often contradicting the original Frank Herbert books. I find that Chris Tolkien has really done as much as possible to preserve his fathers legacy, which cannot be said for Brian Herbert, who is trying to ruin his fathers franchise by putting out large numbers of half-baked books.

  5. Re:Dull as dish water by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except that Tolkien considered LotR the distraction, and the Hobbit's drawing on his mythos something of an accident. His main concern was the Silmarillion, which he tried unsuccessfully to get published alongside LotR.

    The Silmarillion is not LotR, but it is, for those that have the patience and appreciation for that sort of thing, a glorious tale. Unfortunately, the published form is in many cases ripped from the Grey Annals, which were a sort concise historical chronology, and not in and of themselves full narratives. Tolkien planned a rather enormous expansion of the work, of which the Children of Hurin was the only part that approached completion. It, and the unfinished version of "Of Tuor and His Coming to Gondolin" that is found in Unfinished Tales are very much like LotR in storytelling quality.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  6. Re:Excellent!~ by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's his notes. There is a huge difference.
    There are lots of notes. There are also lots of completed works. The Lost Tales is largely complete. The Annals of Beleriand and the Grey Annals are largely complete.

    Just how much of the History of Middle Earth series have you even read?
    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  7. Re:Dull as dish water by frogstar_robot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Parts of the Simarillion work as good novellas in themselves. I particularly enjoyed the tale of Beren and Luthien.

  8. One ring to bore them all by Floritard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I just saw Clerks 2 (b/c sometimes I like to punish the Ebert within) and while it itself is a terrible flick, it has perhaps the most perfect summation of my feelings on the LOTR trilogy, albeit the film form. As far as I'm concerned Tolkien Jr. would do well to stray somewhat and make a good action/adventure story (as TFA hints at) instead of the plodding tale his father took too many pages to tell. It had a great setting/world but god what a dull pedantic road trip LOTR was. We get it, the rings is evil. Really evil. Just drop the fucking thing in the volcano already.

  9. Re:Excellent!~ by ggKimmieGal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope you are aware that The Lord of the Rings IS the sequel. Tolkien didn't write LOTR first. It came much later after he wrote almost all of the Silmarillion. He had been working his way up to that novel for years before he ever sat down to write it. His wife also added quite a lot to all of his work, though her name is often forgotten. LOTR was edited and edited until it was something people could try to read in under a month. But the fact is, Tolkien is not that type of writer. If you look at any of his other novels, he meant for the world to take LOTR slow. He wanted you to get lost in the world that he and his wife created. His books should take you years to read, and after you've read them, he wanted you to go back and read them again. At least, that is the impression I got when reading through the histories of Middle Earth. This isn't about opportunism. It's about Tolkien's world. If you don't have the patience for his novels, I don't recommend them.

  10. Re:question about the "other" Tolkien books ... by mpiktas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Try reading Unfinished Tales and the appendix of LOTR, then maybe you'll enjoy Silmarillion more. In my opinion only The Silmarillion reveals full glory of Tolkien's creation, LOTR with is about humans, Silmarillion is about gods. No wonder why Christopher Tolkien despises Jackson interpretation of LOTR, it just ignores Silmarillion completely, downgrading magnificent story to some anonymous D&D quest.

  11. Re:question about the "other" Tolkien books ... by Endo13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wish I had mod points for you. You hit the nail right on the head there.

    All my friends really like the LotR movies, and I suppose they're good movies, if you've never read Tolkien's books and/or don't care about Tolkien's world. However I happen to like Tolkien's world, and The Silmarillion, and as a result I don't care for the movies at all.

    --
    There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
  12. Re:Excellent!~ by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He's definitely out to make a buck on his father's work.

    So was his father. That's why you can buy Lord of the Rings in a store. People work to make money...
    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  13. Re:Excellent!~ by STrinity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Chris Tolkien annoys the crap out of me, though, admittedly, more for "original" tripe like The Treason of Isengard than for compilations like the Silmarillion...
    The Treason of Isengard is just as much a compilation as the Silmarillion -- in this case, it's early drafts of The Two Towers. The only original content CRT provides is notes on when various sections were written and how they relate to others.

    He's definitely out to make a buck on his father's work.
    Making a buck by publishing twelve volumes of early manuscripts and notes that are of interest to scholars, and editing some of those manuscripts so they can be published as completed novels for general fans, is vastly preferable to creating novels from whole cloth like Frank Herbert's son.
    --
    Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
  14. Wikipedia link by mlmll · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Here is Wikipedia's article on the book.

    I dearly hope Christopher, with all the material at hand about Húrin and Túrin, produces a book whose quality is close to his father's writings. If so, the unavoidable buzz that'll happen in our post-Jackson-movies world would be a huge boost to help popularize all books dealing with Arda before the War of the Rings (The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales,...). That'd be nice: too many people watched the movie, eventually read the related trilogy, and then nothing else.