Third Tolkien Trilogy, THE FALL OF GONDOLIN to Publish on August 30 | Hacker News Reader

Third Tolkien Trilogy, THE FALL OF GONDOLIN to Publish on August 30

prnewswire.com

48 pointsohjeez21 comments

"the Noldor, the kindred of the Elves among whom were numbered Húrin and Túrin Turambar"

Um, not quite. Hurin and Turin were men, not Elves, at least according to The Silmarillion.

Speaking of which, has anyone who has read the Silmarillion also read The Children of Hurin or Beren and Luthian? Are they the same stories with more detail? Do they change the basic stories told in the Silmarillion?

I have obsessively read the Silmarillion and the Children of Hurin, and they are overarchingly the same, just in different formats. The Silmarillion is written like a history book; the Children of Hurin is written like a novel.

I never got through the poem of Beren and Luthian, I am not a poem guy, but from the bits I have read, it seemed to have the same relationship to the Silmarillion as the Children of Hurin.

Also, I am unclear if this is a "new" version of the Fall of Gondolin or just a new printing of the old one. Anyone found a more detailed source?

It appears to be a combination of "The Coming of Tuor to Gondolin" found in "Unfinished Tales" and "The Fall of Gondolin" found in "The Book of Lost Tales 2" [1]. The first covers Tuor's journey from Dor-Lomin to Gondolin in detail but stops there (Christopher Tolkien called it "one of the saddest facts in the whole history of incompletion"). The second covers the fall of the city itself in great detail. I read the two in that order recently and enjoyed the account immensely; it's on the order of Lord of the Rings in terms of a compelling story, grandeur and beauty.

[1] https://www.tolkiensociety.org/2018/04/the-fall-of-gondolin-...

Pro tip: let someone else read you poetry. Get an audio book version for poem books (see also: the Iliad and the Odessey, which I couldn’t force myself to read past page three)

Yup, The Children of Hurin is an extended telling of the story from The Silmarillion. They're basically the same, but I enjoyed the longer read.

Read both of them + Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth and few of the books in the History of Middle-Earth series compiled by Christopher.

I have to say I was disappointed in the Children of Hurin as it was once again repeating the same story with slight variations. After that I skipped the Beren and Luthien and will skip the new one as well. But my view may be distorted by the HoME series as they were full of different versions of the same stories.

In case anyone else was curious like I was, these have been compiled by Tolkien's son, Christopher Tolkien [1].

Of all the fantasy authors I've read only George R.R. Martin of the ASOIAF series spends nearly as much time world-building. Even then, Martin is still a world apart from Tolkien in my opinion.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Tolkien

Is LOTR universe known to be consistent? Are there glitches in chronologies, genealogies , geography, etc...? Is there a (graph) dB of LOTR facts?

The officially published world is consistent. The Hobbit was even slight modified to be consistent with LOTR.

However, all the drafts Christopher Tolkien is using have been written at various times, they were rewritten multiple times while the overall world evolved so they are not canon or consistent.

What Christopher Tolkien is mostly doing is "adapting" these drafts into the final canon of the Silmarillion.

It's consistent to a point. There have been several revisions of The Hobbit and LOTR over the years, but all were done by JRR himself I believe, and were done for continuity sake and detail. As far as the worldbuilding goes, it's exceptionally consistent. Considering the bulk of all work put out was done by JRR, with Christopher Tolkien doing editing passes during compilation. For instance, the Children of Hurin and The Lay of Beren and Luthien were described in LOTR and the Silmarillion, but were not included largely due to length and incompleteness (the Silmarillion is really just a Cliff's Notes version of the full Legendarium, allegedly).

As far as a timeline goes, several are available, but I would try to steer away from most wiki sites, as they have been, in the eyes of some, 'polluted' by the handling of the IP by non-Tolkiens. (ie the movies and games like Shadow of Mordor)

Geography of Middle Earth is a somewhat complex topic, but the big deal is that it goes through some drastic changes as part of the Silmarillion called the War of Wrath. Other than that large shift, the geography is very consistent. Tolkien really, really loves his maps.

Small quibble, The Silmarillion is more of a Bible-esque summary of thousands of years of history than an easy to read Cliff's Notes, lest anyone be surprised by how difficult it is to read when they pick it up :-)

The whole Hobbit business is severely out of place compared with the rest of the background. It's pastoral 18th century England in a Dark Ages setting.

One nice thing is that whenever a character mentions the phase of the moon Tolkien has been careful to get the correct phase for that particular day.

> Martin is still a world apart from Tolkien in my opinion

You mean Martin's books are not the same calibre as one by (JRR | Christopher) Tolkien?

I believe he's implying that Tolkien went to world building level of detail extremes that Martin, though thorough in his own right, falls well short of.

... That was a very nicely structured sentence.

Robert Jordan (Wheel of Time) is rather ahead of George Martin worldbuilding-wise and is probably second after Tolkien in the genre.

I love Tolkien's The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings and find the world he built intricate and fascinating, but I'm not sure how I feel about the posthumous work his son has released. I know they were based off his father's extensive notes and manuscripts but for reasons I can't put my finger on it seems somehow cheapened. I have yet to try them so anyone with more informed opinions on their quality would be welcome to tell me I'm wrong.

For me, it's not so much that they cheapened anything but that I never found them terribly interesting. Both The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings were great stories (for the most part) set in a richly imagined world. But that doesn't mean I want to plod through hundreds or thousands of pages about the background mythology in great dry detail.

Yeah, it's more like a history textbook than a novel.

Actually, the posthumous books edited by Christopher Tolkien are not based off his father's extensive notes and manuscripts -- they ARE, quite literally, his father's extensive notes and manuscripts, organised and annotated by Christopher into a coherent series of publications.

Whether you should try them or not depends on what is your personal favourite form of reading material. Tolkien himself once quoted G.W. Dasent: "We must be satisfied with the soup that is set before us, and not desire to see the bones of the ox out of which it has been boiled." If you enjoy a good soup, I recommend you to read The Silmarillion and The Unfinished Tales, even though they might not be as delicious as The Lord of the Rings. But if you are a connoisseur of raw bones, enjoying reading the different versions, drafts and scraps of those stories before they were published (and many others never actually published, like the beginning of a LoTR sequel, or a time-travel novel connecting Numenor with 20th century England) -- in other words, if you enjoyed the Appendices as much as LoTR itself -- you will definitely find the right reading material in the HoMR books.

More details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_Middle-earth

Reply on news.ycombinator.com