Take a photo of a barcode or cover
zjames 's review for:
The Silmarillion
by J.R.R. Tolkien
"Slow." "Boring." "Dry." "Ponderous." "Self-indulgent."
How does one review The Silmarillion? For those who read The Lord of the Rings and thought the descriptions above were all too accurate, they'll only find more of the same with The Silmarillion.
In fact, the very weaknesses that LOTR's detractors cite as their problems with the books are only more prevalent in The Silmarillion. Middle school me, who loved LOTR but still had a tough time with the drier parts, was overwhelmed by the scope and history of The Silmarillion and couldn't finish it.
If you did not absolutely love LOTR, even it's long-winded descriptions, then you won't like The Silmarillion. But the opposite danger is present as well: if you're looking for the heroic action scenes, the beautiful descriptions of lands and cities, and touching dialogue between characters such as Gandalf and Frodo that defined LOTR, you'll bad sadly disappointed.
The Silmarillion has beauty, heroism, tragedy, and action, but they're all painted with much broader strokes. The book covers thousands of years and probably hundreds of named characters. The central event is the War of the Jewels, fought over three gems known as the Silmarils, from which the book gets its name, but really the book covers all of the events of Middle-Earth and Arda leading up to and after the events surrounding the Silmarils.
I believe it would be more appropriately titled A History of Middle Earth (or perhaps A History of Arda, though the name is less well-known) and this would have set the reader's expectations a little more accurately, as I'm sure many over the years (including middle school me) picked up the book expecting a LOTR prequel, and got a history lesson instead. Sadly, I'm sure marketing got involved, as while "A History of Middle-Earth" is more accurate, it is perhaps not very exciting.
The book is full of worldbuilding that reaches a creativity and depth unmatched by any other work of fiction, and it's a shame Tolkien never lived long enough to turn these stories into actual novels, though I wonder just how many lifetimes the man would've needed to finish writing everything that was in his head. Somewhere in the multiverse there exists the ten to twenty novels that cover all of the events of Arda. That is just how many books would be needed to cover the vast history contained with this book.
So of course, Christopher Tolkien had to tell these events with very broad strokes: "This happened in this year, then next year these people went to this place. This person said this thing, then the other said this..." and so on. It definitely gets a bit dry at times, and would be extremely slow and tedious compared to the average novel, so the reader must instead treat this like the history book it is and review it as such, and anyone looking to pick it up must expect the same.
Still, for the Middle-Earth fanatic, this is a must-read and an amazing look into the mind and inner-world of the author of the greatest fantasy series of all time.
How does one review The Silmarillion? For those who read The Lord of the Rings and thought the descriptions above were all too accurate, they'll only find more of the same with The Silmarillion.
In fact, the very weaknesses that LOTR's detractors cite as their problems with the books are only more prevalent in The Silmarillion. Middle school me, who loved LOTR but still had a tough time with the drier parts, was overwhelmed by the scope and history of The Silmarillion and couldn't finish it.
If you did not absolutely love LOTR, even it's long-winded descriptions, then you won't like The Silmarillion. But the opposite danger is present as well: if you're looking for the heroic action scenes, the beautiful descriptions of lands and cities, and touching dialogue between characters such as Gandalf and Frodo that defined LOTR, you'll bad sadly disappointed.
The Silmarillion has beauty, heroism, tragedy, and action, but they're all painted with much broader strokes. The book covers thousands of years and probably hundreds of named characters. The central event is the War of the Jewels, fought over three gems known as the Silmarils, from which the book gets its name, but really the book covers all of the events of Middle-Earth and Arda leading up to and after the events surrounding the Silmarils.
I believe it would be more appropriately titled A History of Middle Earth (or perhaps A History of Arda, though the name is less well-known) and this would have set the reader's expectations a little more accurately, as I'm sure many over the years (including middle school me) picked up the book expecting a LOTR prequel, and got a history lesson instead. Sadly, I'm sure marketing got involved, as while "A History of Middle-Earth" is more accurate, it is perhaps not very exciting.
The book is full of worldbuilding that reaches a creativity and depth unmatched by any other work of fiction, and it's a shame Tolkien never lived long enough to turn these stories into actual novels, though I wonder just how many lifetimes the man would've needed to finish writing everything that was in his head. Somewhere in the multiverse there exists the ten to twenty novels that cover all of the events of Arda. That is just how many books would be needed to cover the vast history contained with this book.
So of course, Christopher Tolkien had to tell these events with very broad strokes: "This happened in this year, then next year these people went to this place. This person said this thing, then the other said this..." and so on. It definitely gets a bit dry at times, and would be extremely slow and tedious compared to the average novel, so the reader must instead treat this like the history book it is and review it as such, and anyone looking to pick it up must expect the same.
Still, for the Middle-Earth fanatic, this is a must-read and an amazing look into the mind and inner-world of the author of the greatest fantasy series of all time.