"Children of Húrin" has been published...

[Primula Baggins]

That's a great review, TORN, written by someone who obviously "gets" Tolkien. Thanks!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Indeed!

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

There is going to be a review of sorts on BBC2's Newsnight programme tonight between 10.30 and 11.15. I'm not able to copy it though.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks for the heads up, Tosh. Unfortunately ... .

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

I'll try and take notes. I expect they'll wheel on someone who hates Tolkien to comment. That is what usually happens.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'll look forward to hearing your impressions.

I've seen a number of references in articles that I have read to the Sil as the "Sell-mirillion" implying that it was produced simply to cash in on Tolkien's popularity. I suspect that you'll get some kind of comment like that. And/or a comment about the "juvenile" nature of the work, with its dragon and talking sword.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

The news item was a little disjointed. First we saw some ofTheodred's funeral from the movie. Then the reporter, Nazir Iqbal, said that 150 million copies of LOTR had been sold. Then about 15 seconds of Tolkien in 1968 talking about the critics' dislike of narrative devices such as asides to an audience. He made a brief mention of his essay 'On Fairy-Tales' I would guess he was referring to reaction to The Hobbit.
Then we had an interview with Adam Tolkien saying that the elements of the new book could be found in scholarly works (HOME of course) but this book provided a stand-alone story. He mentioned the incest but said it was a minor matter among the dark tragic events of death and betrayal. He tried a little lamely to place the action in relation to the events of LOTR; an unenviable task in the time he had available. He pointed out that nonetheless the story was a beautiful one. Then we switched to the Alan Lee exhibition and Nazir Iqbal interviewed him in the gallery. We saw some of his illustrations, several being from LOTR such as the fellowship by the Doors of Durin and the breaking of the wall at Helm's Deep, as well as Húrin seated on Thangorodrim. Lee compared book illustrations that are next to the words themselves to a film. At one point we had a few more seconds of Tolkien trying to put LOTR into context with his world of the Silmarillion. Yes, seconds. Interestingly he referred to (probably) Sauron as the devil, though he might have meant Morgoth. We also had a brief clip of Aragorn in the Rohan stables and the purist (they didn't use that word I believe) objections to such passages in the film were compared to the unhobbit-like nature of the new book.
Sorry it was a bit garbled but I couldn't video it so have relied on memory.
It was good to see the prof but his diction wasn't very clear. I think it was perhaps a reaction to excitement or stress and probably led to these brief snippets resting in the vaults until now.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks, Tosh!

Here is a really good review at Salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/04/17/Húrin/

[scirocco]

I've read it now, and put a brief review up at TORC, here. If I sound a bit lukewarm, that's probably a bit harsh; it's just that the book is pretty much what you would expect, that's all.

[Alatar]

Tosh, I watched it also. A few things that stood out for me. Firstly, the references Tolkien made about critics not liking the "asides" in fairy stories. I thought he said that his first critics were his children and that they were the ones who disliked the fairy tale conventions of dropping out of the story to refer directly to the audience. As you say though, his speech was quite indistinct. I would have agreed though that he was referring to Morgoth as the Devil, not Sauron.

I thought Adam Tolkien did an admirable job of selling the book on its own merits without trying to pretend its something its not. He made it clear that most of this was already published, and that this was only different in its attempt to present a complete uninterrupted narrative.

This was no "review" of the book as such, merely a news item on its publication.

Oh, and Alan Lee's artwork looks even more stunning whe its full size on a gallery wall...

[truehobbit]

Tolkien had a reputation for speaking indistinctly, didn't he?

Thanks for all the summaries and reviews.

Wow, that was quick reading, scirocco! Off to read your review.

[Rowanberry]

It's been interesting to read all those articles and reviews.

I haven't got the book yet, but will certainly get it at some point.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

scirocco, I don't think you sound lukewarm in your review, just honest. As I said there, it sounds very much as I expected. Really, this is not so much a work for those of us that have studied Tolkien's work obsessively. It is more to make an important part of Tolkien's work more accessible to a wider audience. I thought your review did a good job of focusing on how successful it is likely to be in doing that. The prove will be in the pudding, however (meaning, of course, whether that wider audience appreciates the work, or is put off by some of the daunting things that you mention in your review).

[Inanna]

hey scirocco!!

[axordil]

The Salon review was as thoughtful a piece of work as I've seen on Tolkien in the "mainstream" press. Although I did have to correct one of the letter-writers.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I have it here in my greedy little hands. They only had the regular edition, which is fine because I ordered the deluxe edition from Amazon. I'll probably just read this one and then give it to someone who I think will appreciate it but might not buy it themself.

I also heard a good interview with Michael Drout (editor of the new Tolkien encyclopaedia) on the public radio program "Here and Now".

[Inanna]

Wow. you guys are fast.

[TORN]

fyi -- getting very positive reviews in popular press -- on CNN (which posted an AP story that is being picked up everywhere and in Time magazine (or at least the website) --

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/books/0 ... olkien.ap/

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0 ... 48,00.html- with a pic of a young JRRT

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

I see that Mithluin (along with Michael Drout, Mike Perry and Verlyn Flieger among others) had a comment on the timeonline review. Go Mith! Give 'em heck!

People who could not finish reading Lord of the Rings because they found it to lack depth should realize that writing reviews of Tolkien's works just makes them look foolish. I understand the attempt to 'distance' this new book from Tolkein's other stories to appeal to a new audience, but disparaging the original audience is rather disingenuous. Tolkien most certainly did 'update' his stories. He did not give them modern settings nor did he tell them in a modern style....but he infused the characters with a dignity and gave their lives a meaning that is sorely lacking in (for instance) the Tale of Kullervo that serves as the model for Túrin and Neinor. I suppose "purged them of the gross" is how he put it.

MithLuin, Baltimore, MD,

Brianis AtYou

[Primula Baggins]

Where was that, Brian? I went to the Time article, but couldn't find any link to comments.

I dislike the Time review. It reminds me of the bad old days when the films were coming out—well, that part was okay , but all the writing about Tolkien from people who were Too Cool to Care really stung sometimes.