h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Tolkien's Silmarillion - An Overview - A2524565
Author: Gnomon - U151503

OK Tolkien-heads, get your teeth into this. Is it too detailed? Is it the right approach, or should a summary of the book leave out the details?

I've steered away from listing every single character and how they are all related to each other, as there are just too many of them.

It might be just me, but the whole entry seems a little top heavy (physically)...

You start off with some excellent summaries, then, by the time you get to the section on the rings of power, which, let's face it, are probably the most important and relevent part of the book to someone who's only ever seen the films, etc. Then they only get a couple of lines.

Ok, that's argueably not the most important section of the book, and much of the information is already in TLotR, but some of your readers will never have even read the original books and their knowledge of the rings will be limited to a couple of minutes of prelog in Peter Jackson's FotR.

Apologies if this seems a little harsh, but I'm sure you can handle it

I consider the "Of the Rings of Power" section to be the least important in the Silmarillion. It is only about 10 pages long and is basically repeating what it in The Lord of the Rings anyway. I don't think it deserves a big section, but I could give it a few sentences if you like.

I gotta say the same thing about this one as I have about the LOTR entry which appeared a few days ago - should an EG entry about a book be a synopsis of the plot with not much else to flesh it out? True, The Silmarillion has been dissected far less than LOTR because it's not been around for as long, it's far shorter, and it's much less the kind of story that's open to dissection.

Having said that, there are a few things about the entry which I think need some attention. I've read the book four or five times over the past 25 years, twice within the last 18 months, so my memory of it is fairly fresh.

maing - making

"losing the right to be called a Vala"
I don't recall that - I thought he was simply renamed by Feanor, and the elves called him that afterwards. Did the the Valar proclaim that he should no longer be called a Vala?

"the Noldor, or High Elves"
The Noldor weren't the only High Elves - High Elves were those made the journey across the sea in the time of the Two Trees. There was also The Vanyar who all went to Aman and none of whom ever returned to Middle Earth, and a handful of The Teleri

"He invents the art of maing gems"
I would rephrase that along the lines of 'He discovers how to make gems'. He was pretty much the only one who could do it, and calling it an art suggests that anyone with the skill could do the same. That wasn't the case.

"and captures the light"
'capturing the light' (you've already got one 'and' in that sentence).

"Melkor is let out of prison, having served his time"
I don't recall the entry saying that he had previously been imprisoned.

"Fëanor's heart is turned against the Valar"
'against them'

"and go to the port"
I'd call it a harbour rather than a port - a port suggests trade.

"He also has balrogs, fire spirits, which he had persuaded to join him before the world was made"
That suggests that balrogs were always balrogs, which I believe is not the case - they were other Maiar which Melkor corrupted.

"Sauron, Lord of Werewolves"
Same kind of thing - Sauron only *became* Lord of Werewolves after he sided with Morgoth.

"succeed in getting the jewel, and bringing it back to the King"
No he didn't - his hand (holding the jewel) was bitten off and swallowed by Carcharoth the wolf outside the gates of Thangorodrim.

"and Gorthaur, Lord of Werewolves, who was later known as Sauron"
I got the impression it was the other way round. I don't think it's made clear whther Sauron was his original Maiar name, but he was later named Gorthaur The Cruel by the elves.

"the Men who had helped on the side of good"
It's not pointed out in the entry that the vasy majority of men eventually went over to Morgoth. The few who sided with the Valar - the Edain - then went on to become Numenoreans. All others stayed in Middle Earth.

"They became the greatest of men, ruling the whole world"
Numenoreans didn't actually rule the world did they? The men who remained along the coasts of Middle Earth took them for kings - gods even, but they weren't given the world to rule, nor did they conquer all of it - I don't get the impression that they went very far inland, leastways not east of the Misty Mountains. The east of Middle Earth were many tribes of men dwelt never saw a Numenorean.

Parts of the ntry waver between past and present tense - even within individual paragrpahs. It would be good to keep it all the same.

Thanks, Gosho, for that detailed reply. I'll try and deal with all your points:

"should an EG entry about a book be a synopsis of the plot with not much else to flesh it out?"

I don't know. I'm in two minds about this one. I don't want to wax lyrical about how great a book it is, filling the entry with opinion. So the most important things to say about the book is the style and a summary of the content. But I'm completely open to suggestions. I also wouldn't mind whatsoever if people feel that an entry such as this is not worth having in the guide.

The detailed points:

maing - fixed

"losing the right to be called a Vala"
- my mistake. I misremembered a comment about Melkor forfeiting the right to use his own name for ever. I've cut it out.

"the Noldor, or High Elves" - I've cleared that up now.

"He invents the art of maing gems" - rephrased
"and captures the light" - rephrased

"I don't recall the entry saying that he had previously been imprisoned." - I mention it at the end of the "Setting the Scene" section.

"Fëanor's heart is turned against the Valar" - rephrased
"and go to the port" - rephrased

"He also has balrogs, fire spirits, which he had persuaded to join him before the world was made" - rephrased

"Sauron, Lord of Werewolves" - rephrased

"succeed in getting the jewel, and bringing it back to the King"
- I did say "after many adventures" and I was including Carcharoth in those, but you're right, it did suggest they went straight back to the king. I've reworded it slight.

"and Gorthaur, Lord of Werewolves, who was later known as Sauron" - both Sauron and Gorthaur were names the elves gave him. I thing Sauron was Quenya (s) while Gorthaur was Sindarin (th), but it's not important, so I've reworded it.

"the Men who had helped on the side of good" - i've now mentioned the evil men

"They became the greatest of men, ruling the whole world"
- The Numenoreans had huge empires further south in Middle Earth which paid tribute to them. They didn't rule the part of Middle Earth in which LOTR is set, except for the city of Umbar. So I'll change it.

"Parts of the ntry waver between past and present tense" - sorry about that. It was supposed to be all in present tense. I'll try and spot the places where it uses past.

Looking much better Gnomon

There are still a few things, one of which I might have missed first time, one which has been changed but still isn't quite right.

"They are the greatest and cleverest Elves and the greatest of them is Fëanor"
Feanor was afterwards considered one of the greatest elves to have lived - "the mightiest of the Noldor", but it I think it needs to be qualified that he was great in the fire of his spirit, and in skills - creating gems and devising a new written language. Other elves, such as his father, Finwe, Ingwe - King of the Vanyar, and Elwe (Thingol) were generally thought of as the greatest of the Eldar I think.

"He has balrogs, fire spirits, which he has persuaded to join him"
The balrogs, when they joined him were (as far as I'm able to tell) not fire spirits, but still Maiar like Sauron, Melian, and Olorin (Gandalf). They didn't become fire spirits until Morgoth turned them into such. That's how I read it from 'Of The Enemies' in The Valaquenta. I'm open to persuasion that it was otherwise. He most certainly did turn them into demons of terror though.

"I don't want to wax lyrical about how great a book it is, filling the entry with opinion"
True - I don't think that would make a great entry either. Having searched through C850 and C840 I find that the majority of entries about books *are* largely plot synopses along with a list of characters so I may well be out of step with what's required to get into the EG, but if looking for an entry to recommend, I'd be going for something like A266069 , A608500 , or A659360 .

But I'm just one Scout amongst many, and probably hold a minority opinion on that. Indeed, it's debatable whther or not The Silmarillion even lends itself to that kind of entry, the way that LOTR certainly does.

Hi Gnomon!

Glad to see this work covered. It is major enough to warrant the effort, and you've done a great job!

I've never been much of a Tolkien fan, but this was also the source for the name of one of my favorite rock groups, Marillion.

(I think they just liked the sound)

Nice one, Gnomon.

I like the structure of this entry. The intro is brief and to the point, and gives the most necessary information about the S. The overview is, well, as such are; rather dull, but satisfactory.

In the intro: "some stories are fully fleshed out in detail; others read more like a screenplay" - I'd say more like a storyboard, as I
think a screenplay really is quite detailed.

I don't think the section on the Rings should be any longer. As you said, they don't play any major role in the Silmarillion.

You refer to Beleriand as "a region which is now under the ocean". When is this "now"? At the time of LotR? Or are you linking it to the history of the real world?

Two minor typos in the Downfall of Gondolin section:
he claims that the Aredhel's and Maeglin's lives belong to him
- strike the "the", or make it "the lives of A. and M."
Maeglin, is not completely happy with this
- a surplus comma




cheers
~Bistro

Right. Well I've not read the book and it's certainly not on my 'to read' list as I don't actully like either Tolkien or fantasy books.

*listens to gasps*

But I do think that an entry on a book needs to be more than a summary of the plot, the summary needs to be included of course, but not in a way that ruins the plot of the book, for example I'd be disapointed if an entry on an Agatha Christie book revealed 'who did it'.

I'd also like to know some of the following. These are, of course, all of my opinions and can easily be ignored. But I hope they'll provide points for discussion.

The time that it was written - wartime England or 1970s America. Was it a first novel or a highly antipated second one.

How was it recieved at the time of publication? Were there rave reviews or was it considered to be a flop. Were the initial sales good or bad.

Where it is in relation to other literature of the time, for example does it draw on others in the same genre. Does it parody them or did it set new ground completely? Did it start a genre?

How is it currently reguarded? Is it studied in classrooms as a A level text as Shakespeare is? or is it a cult work inspiring fan fiction on the internet?

Has it been made into a film? Was it a good representation of the book in most critic's eyes?

Just my (well actually a bit more than my )

If the Entry had just been titled "Tolkien's Silmarillion", I'd probably agree with Gosho and Z, that it needed more than just a short intro and a summary. However, it specifically presents itself as an overview, nothing more.

As long as the title represents the content, so people know what they're getting, I don't see the problem. This entry provides a good, thorough overview of the story(/ies) of the Silmarillion, _and_ leaves room for a possible second entry, dealing with the more y stuff, like interpretations, background, influences, etc.


just change for
cheers,
~Bistro

Good points, everybody. As I said before, I don't know myself what should be in this entry. I think Gosho and Z are right that it should have more about the writing of the book, rather than the content. The plot summary may have to be condensed a bit more to make up for it.

I'll have to do some research, so I'm putting this on hold for the moment. Scouts, please don't pick it!

I don't think it is worth withdrawing from Peer Review, as I should have something written in a few days.

*waits with baited breath*

All agog

OK, I've added a section "The Writing of the Book" which covers many of the points raised. I've also reworded the plot summary very slightly, making it about 10% shorter, but I am reluctant to leave out any more than that!

Z,

I'm curious. You say you haven't read "The Silmarillion" and that you haven't read "The Lord of the Rings" and that you don't like Tolkien. How do you know?

Well, I've struggled through the Hobbit, which I didn't like - yet finished. I've tried to read Lord of the Rings five times, and never managed to enjoy reading it - I've always got stuck around 500 pages. Oh and I've watched one of the films and didn't like that.

Fair enough!

This is ready to be picked now, in my opinion.

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Thanks!

That's a nice treat for the weekend. Thanks, everyone who commented.