Reading the Silmarillion
Oct. 19th, 2010 07:47 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
fictivore.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
silwritersguild Hello Everyone...
This is a question I've been curious about for quite some time, as a Tolkien addict. Then when I discovered this very articulate community I have finally been able to gather the courage to do so, so here goes...
There are few works of fiction existing today, with the amount of sheer detail and fascination as JRR Tolkien's works of the First Age. The incredible world-building, the stories behind the stories, narratives conceived as mythologies, histories even conversations, all provide a very rich playground for a modern fan to play in.
However, this very detail leads to a very interesting question. How do you, as writers and/or scholars of Tolkien's First Age read the Silmarillion? Mythology? History? A Revisionist History written by the victors? A collection of second-hand accounts pieced together into a compelling narrative?
The fact that the Silmarillion is fiction is not in doubt at all... But the Silmarillion is a tale about immortal beings, amazingly fallible in their nature, about gods, about Evil and Destiny and inescapable Fates.
The Quenta Silmarillion itself, in story is supposed to have been a work of historical legend having been put to the paper by various writers. Some portions seem to have been intended to be written by a mortal of the later ages, Aelfwine, who through some unknown 'magic' was able to interact with the earlier ages (a canon time-travel plot bunny!). Some of it is undoubtedly part of the works of Bilbo during his stay in Rivendell, which were themselves translation from the work of Rumil of Tirion, a Noldor. 'The Annals of Beleriand', from which we get much of our knowledge of the First Age were supposed to have been written by Pengolodh, a follower of Turgon. The LaCE is a work of Rumil, again.
So do you take into consideration the backgrounds and prejudices of the purported writers while considering aspects of canon? Do you think Tolkien consciously shaped his writing of a piece based on that?
How much of the actual events are the fault of the actions of the characters? How much is Destiny and Doom and choices of their fore-fathers (the Feanorians, Turin, even Dior)?
Very interested in hearing the views of the fannishness at large... :D
This is a question I've been curious about for quite some time, as a Tolkien addict. Then when I discovered this very articulate community I have finally been able to gather the courage to do so, so here goes...
There are few works of fiction existing today, with the amount of sheer detail and fascination as JRR Tolkien's works of the First Age. The incredible world-building, the stories behind the stories, narratives conceived as mythologies, histories even conversations, all provide a very rich playground for a modern fan to play in.
However, this very detail leads to a very interesting question. How do you, as writers and/or scholars of Tolkien's First Age read the Silmarillion? Mythology? History? A Revisionist History written by the victors? A collection of second-hand accounts pieced together into a compelling narrative?
The fact that the Silmarillion is fiction is not in doubt at all... But the Silmarillion is a tale about immortal beings, amazingly fallible in their nature, about gods, about Evil and Destiny and inescapable Fates.
The Quenta Silmarillion itself, in story is supposed to have been a work of historical legend having been put to the paper by various writers. Some portions seem to have been intended to be written by a mortal of the later ages, Aelfwine, who through some unknown 'magic' was able to interact with the earlier ages (a canon time-travel plot bunny!). Some of it is undoubtedly part of the works of Bilbo during his stay in Rivendell, which were themselves translation from the work of Rumil of Tirion, a Noldor. 'The Annals of Beleriand', from which we get much of our knowledge of the First Age were supposed to have been written by Pengolodh, a follower of Turgon. The LaCE is a work of Rumil, again.
So do you take into consideration the backgrounds and prejudices of the purported writers while considering aspects of canon? Do you think Tolkien consciously shaped his writing of a piece based on that?
How much of the actual events are the fault of the actions of the characters? How much is Destiny and Doom and choices of their fore-fathers (the Feanorians, Turin, even Dior)?
Very interested in hearing the views of the fannishness at large... :D
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: There can never be enough meta in the world!
Date: 2010-10-19 11:43 pm (UTC)Re: There can never be enough meta in the world!
Date: 2010-10-20 12:31 am (UTC)(Re: HP books, personally I'd have been happy even if JKR'd shown just a *single* Slytherin who was not an evil asshole and/or a moron and not sent the entire House out in the Final Battle :/)