We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    8

    The Silmarillion - a good Christmas read?

    I know this might be sacrillege to admit, but I haven't actually ever read 'The Silmarillion.' I mean not properly.

    What do we think about it here?? Worth diving into over advent?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    600
    Silmarillion book is 5* for me, but you should read because you want and not because other persons tell you to
    Its on my best books readed list though

    Have a nice week \o/
    Rucagorn, The White Guardian - Portugal
    fellowshipguardians.guildlaunch.com/
    .

  3. #3
    The Silmarillion is an excellent read I would recommend to anyone, under 2 conditions (besides the obvious one that you enjoy reading this type of genre):

    1. The reader should be fairly familiar with Tolkien’s main works: The Hobbit and LOTR. This is so that you have some context to put the Silmarillion into. I think it makes it more enjoyable when you have this frame of reference and can recognize characters such as Sauron, Galadriel, Elrond, Cirdan, etc.

    2. The reader should understand that the Silmarillion is written as more of an over-arching history of Arda, and as such, reads a little bit more like a textbook than The Hobbit or LOTR which are more narrative in style. This is not to say that the Silmarillion is dull or boring. On the contrary, the stories contained within it are enchanting and delightful! (And also several are a bit darker than say LOTR). But it does mean that the text stays at more of a ’10 thousand foot level’ and you don’t really get down into the thoughts and feelings of the characters as much, or into the explicit descriptions of places characteristic of Tolkien’s other writing.

    With those 2 conditions met, I would highly recommend reading the Silmarillion. It is majestic and breathtaking, and also gives you insight into just how deep of a world with such a rich history that JRRT invented. It really is an entire mythology, which to me is what sets Middle Earth apart from almost any other work out there.

    (PS, if it seems a bit slow to you at the start with the creation myth and such, keep chugging, it will pick up soon – especially when you get to that hot-headed Feanor).
    Last edited by Wilros; Dec 11 2013 at 11:26 AM. Reason: Clarification
    "I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend," Faramir in TTT by JRRT.

  4. #4

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Wilros View Post
    The Silmarillion is an excellent read I would recommend to anyone, under 2 conditions (besides the obvious one that you enjoy reading this type of genre):

    1. The reader should be fairly familiar with Tolkien’s main works: The Hobbit and LOTR. This is so that you have some context to put the Silmarillion into. I think it makes it more enjoyable when you have this frame of reference and can recognize characters such as Sauron, Galadriel, Elrond, Cirdan, etc.

    2. The reader should understand that the Silmarillion is written as more of an over-arching history of Middle Earth, and as such, reads a little bit more like a textbook than The Hobbit or LOTR which are more narrative in style. This is not to say that the Silmarillion is dull or boring. On the contrary, the stories contained within it are enchanting and delightful! (And also several are a bit darker than say LOTR). But it does mean that the text stays at more of a ’10 thousand foot level’ and you don’t really get down into the thoughts and feelings of the characters as much, or into the explicit descriptions of places characteristic of Tolkien’s other writing.

    With those 2 conditions met, I would highly recommend reading the Silmarillion. It is majestic and breathtaking, and also gives you insight into just how deep of a world with such a rich history that JRRT invented. It really is an entire mythology, which to me is what sets Middle Earth apart from almost any other work out there.

    (PS, if it seems a bit slow to you at the start with the creation myth and such, keep chugging, it will pick up soon – especially when you get to that hot-headed Feanor).
    Unfortunately they removed +rep button.
    The only impossibility is the possibility of impossibilities -Me

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ponyville
    Posts
    382
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeSpiers View Post
    I know this might be sacrillege to admit, but I haven't actually ever read 'The Silmarillion.' I mean not properly.

    What do we think about it here?? Worth diving into over advent?
    Rucagorn's right, you should read it because YOU want to, but yes it in a VERY good book!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeSpiers View Post
    I know this might be sacrillege to admit, but I haven't actually ever read 'The Silmarillion.' I mean not properly.

    What do we think about it here?? Worth diving into over advent?
    I just started reading this myself recently. I'm on chapter 3.

    Great choice indeed Mike.
    “It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door. You step into the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.”

    ~ Bilbo Baggins * J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Gallifrey. I need a Jelly Baby.
    Posts
    19,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilros View Post
    1. The reader should be fairly familiar with Tolkien’s main works: The Hobbit and LOTR. This is so that you have some context to put the Silmarillion into. I think it makes it more enjoyable when you have this frame of reference and can recognize characters such as Sauron, Galadriel, Elrond, Cirdan, etc.

    I cannot stress enough how true this is.
    Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"
    Continuing the never ending battle to keep Lobelia Sackville-Baggins in check

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilros View Post
    1. The reader should be fairly familiar with Tolkien’s main works: The Hobbit and LOTR. This is so that you have some context to put the Silmarillion into. I think it makes it more enjoyable when you have this frame of reference and can recognize characters such as Sauron, Galadriel, Elrond, Cirdan, etc.


    2. The reader should understand that the Silmarillion is written as more of an over-arching history of Arda, and as such, reads a little bit more like a textbook than The Hobbit or LOTR which are more narrative in style. This is not to say that the Silmarillion is dull or boring. On the contrary, the stories contained within it are enchanting and delightful! (And also several are a bit darker than say LOTR). But it does mean that the text stays at more of a ’10 thousand foot level’ and you don’t really get down into the thoughts and feelings of the characters as much, or into the explicit descriptions of places characteristic of Tolkien’s other writing.

    With those 2 conditions met, I would highly recommend reading the Silmarillion. It is majestic and breathtaking, and also gives you insight into just how deep of a world with such a rich history that JRRT invented. It really is an entire mythology, which to me is what sets Middle Earth apart from almost any other work out there.

    (PS, if it seems a bit slow to you at the start with the creation myth and such, keep chugging, it will pick up soon – especially when you get to that hot-headed Feanor).
    I completely agree with both points. I've talked to some people who have said they never read the Lord of the Rings because it was simply to hard. And in many ways the Silmarillion is even harder. If you have read the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings though you should be able to read the Silmarillion. If you have to take it in small bits at the beginning but eventually you will find yourself getting pulled into the book.

    I might also recommend perhaps starting with the Children of Húrin. Reading it is much like reading the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings. Might also help to get you aquinted with the First Age a bit before you delve into the Silmarillion.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    10
    Best book I've ever read. Go for it!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In Rainbows
    Posts
    348
    It's an excellent book as the others were saying, but read it as a history. Jump to the parts you want to read, it can get a bit confusing if you try to read it from cover to cover.
    Meshoot, rank 10 Blackarrow; Hazghnaz, rank 7 Reaver; Blackdingus, r6 Defiler
    Officer of Freepaphiles, Riddermark; Founder of DANCES WITH FREEPS, Gladden
    Aka Grumpis the honorable Mustelidian Pew Pew of love and cheery brightness.
    >:} Memento Mori {:<

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the cupboard under the stairs. (or is it under the stalls?)
    Posts
    3,191
    In order to get the most from The Silmarillion, you need to read it a few times.
    The first time through, there will be a bit of confusion; lots of names that will at first, not really click.
    The second time through, you will have a better shot at understanding the confusing bits.

    I also recommend The Book of Lost Tales.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boo...ents_of_Book_1

    This has much of the same material in it that The Silmarillion has, but from a bit of a different perspective.

    After you are through both of those, you should the pick up The Children Of Hurin. This story is told in both of the previous books, and in this presentation Christopher Tolkien did a great job (as mentioned up-thread) of treating it as a pure narrative.

    I really enjoy the complete saga of Turin. Such tragedy has seldom been expressed so well. Hamlet maybe.
    Last edited by Boraxxe; Dec 18 2013 at 10:14 PM.
    "Just like Mary Shelly, Just like Frankenstein, Break your chains, And count your change, And try to walk the line"

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Cookie Land
    Posts
    1,617
    If you have not read LOTR and The Hobbit yet, it might be a good idea to go ahead and read the Sil first. When you read the others afterwards you will have a good idea of how the stories fit into the much vaster timelines. You will also recognize names, places and events mentioned in them that might otherwise be passed over in brief reference to.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Boraxxe View Post
    In order to get the most from The Silmarillion, you need to read it a few times.
    The first time through, there will be a bit of confusion; lots of names that will at first, not really click.
    The second time through, you will have a better shot at understanding the confusing bits.

    I also recommend The Book of Lost Tales.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boo...ents_of_Book_1

    This has much of the same material in it that The Silmarillion has, but from a bit of a different perspective.

    After you are through both of those, you should the pick up The Children Of Hurin. This story is told in both of the previous books, and in this presentation Christopher Tolkien did a great job (as mentioned up-thread) of treating it as a pure narrative.

    I really enjoy the complete saga of Turin. Such tragedy has seldom been expressed so well. Hamlet maybe.
    I actually recommend reading the Silmarillion and the Children of Húrin first then the Book of Lost Tales. Simply because the first two are "cannon" and the Book of Lost Tales, though a very very good book, is not. I still highly recomment it. But since it is more a history of how Tolkien shaped what would become the Silmarillion its best saved for last, until you know how things actually are.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    19
    Personally I think its a load of boring old gibberish (perhaps because it was edited by Tolkiens son, rather than himself) If you need something to help you get to sleep, then by all means read it, but for me, it was utter drivel.

    P.S: This is not to deride the skill of J.R.R Tolkien at all (see further below for details) but the book is essentially all of Tolkiens notes, lore, history, crammed into an epic that has no flow. I believe he was going to use these notes to create a novel (or set of novels), personally I think he would have been quite upset to see his work published in such a raw format, given how much time he spent creating a back story for Lord of The Rings (even creating new languages!).

    By all means read it if you want to learn every little detail about Tolkiens world, but dont read it if you are expecting to be entertained in the fashion a novel entertains.
    Last edited by equinoz; Dec 20 2013 at 12:38 PM.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeSpiers View Post
    I know this might be sacrillege to admit, but I haven't actually ever read 'The Silmarillion.' I mean not properly.

    What do we think about it here?? Worth diving into over advent?
    The thing is - it is not written as a "story" but rather the history of Tolkien's world beginning with the "let there be light" moment. If you like the lore of middle earth and want to learn more then you will enjoy it.
    Member of Antithesis - Elendimir
    Kelethen - level 85 Minstrel
    Bubblewraps- level 85 Runekeeper
    Clemicia - level 85 Burglar

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Lost0711 View Post
    The thing is - it is not written as a "story" but rather the history of Tolkien's world beginning with the "let there be light" moment. If you like the lore of middle earth and want to learn more then you will enjoy it.
    To say it should be read as 'history' is correct. However Tolkien originally envisioned that the Silmarillion would be a novel:
    "After the success of The Hobbit, and prior to the publication of The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien's publisher requested a sequel to The Hobbit, and Tolkien sent them an early draft of The Silmarillion. But through a misunderstanding, the publisher rejected the draft without fully reading it, with the result that Tolkien began work on "A Long Expected Party", the first chapter of what he described at the time as "a new story about Hobbits", which became The Lord of the Rings."
    Tolkien considered the Silmarillion his greatest work (although it was still in rough form). The only reason that the Silmarillion reads as a history book rather than a novel, is because his son butchered/rushed the job:
    "Christopher Tolkien has suggested that, had he taken more time and had access to all the texts, he might have produced a substantially different work. But he was compelled by considerable pressure and demand from his father's readers and publishers to produce something publishable as quickly as possible"
    I regard (as do many others) the Silmarillion as the rough notes of an amazing author, given my own attempts at writing, I know from experience that very in depth notes may be very helpful to myself, but they would be utterly boring for the reader (unless they were reading it as an academic text). From the look of the notes, it is clear that Tolkien had in his hands all the resources to create a novel that would rival (and even better) the Lord Of The Rings, its a great shame he died before completing it, but a greater shame that his son caved into demands to do a rush-job.
    Last edited by equinoz; Dec 20 2013 at 12:40 PM.

  17. #17
    In letter 329, Tolkien writes the following in regards to the Lord of the Rings:
    "I have very little interest in serial literary history, and no interest at all in the history or present situation of the English 'novel'. My work is not a 'novel', but an 'heroic romance' a much older and quite different variety of literature."

    The problem with the Silmarillion, if it can be called a problem, is that it is not written according to the literary techniques and mimetic conventions of the 20th century novel. As such, it inevitably is viewed as inadequate by those who judge it based on those conventions. It is thus far more 'alien' than the Lord of the Rings to those who judge it in such a manner.
    Tolkien's vision was greater than merely wishing to write a novel or series of novels.
    He wanted to create an entire literary tradition for his sub-creation which not only included creating actual languages but also creating works reflecting a wide variety of literary genres to convey that tradition.
    Thus he created historical narratives which were more fleshed out than the annalistic narratives he also created.
    He created versified accounts of some of his major stories which were to stand beside the prose narratives.
    He created a cosmogonic myth and even created philosophical discourses wherein his fictional characters discussed that myth.
    Tolkien was a man whose literary tastes were not bound by the literary standards of the 20th century. As such, many find the Silmarillion not to their tastes.
    But to call them rough notes butchered by his son is a gross mischaracterization of the work he spent a great deal of his life creating. The publication of HoME shows such statements to have no grounding in reality.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Ceredig View Post
    . The publication of HoME shows such statements to have no grounding in reality.
    Correction: In your opinion. As in mine.

    That is: unless you wish to dispute the words of Tolkiens own son, in that he released the work under pressure, and that something very different may have been released, had he not been under that pressure.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by equinoz View Post
    Correction: In your opinion. As in mine.

    That is: unless you wish to dispute the words of Tolkiens own son, in that he released the work under pressure, and that something very different may have been released, had he not been under that pressure.
    I do not dispute the actual words of his son; I dispute your interpretation of a 3rd party statement which itself is an interpretation of what Chris actually said.
    You consistently assert that Tolkien wished to write a novel when Tolkien himself states in a variety of instances he had no such desire and where his literary legacy shows such a statement to have no factual basis.
    Furthermore the publication of HoME does show that Chris was extremely faithful to the presentation of his father's materials given how much and how divergent those materials were. Where he can be faulted is that he did not convey the entirety of that material because he was bound by the conventions of the novel.
    Equinoz, have you read any of the volumes of HoME? With the exclusion of the "Ruin of Doriath", what chapters did Chris actually 'butcher'?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Ceredig View Post
    Equinoz, have you read any of the volumes of HoME? With the exclusion of the "Ruin of Doriath", what chapters did Chris actually 'butcher'?
    I am an avid Tolkien fan, and I have read ALL of his works. To me Tolkien is first and foremost a novelist, (an amazing one at that) he has the ability to not only spin out amazing prose, but also has the ability to back up that prose with a huge amount of back story (mixed between research of old mythology and things he simply made up himself such as various languages)

    Tolkien appeared to go out of his way to make his works accessible to the layman (and indeed began to write for his children, the simplest and hardest people to write for) he was also a professor of English, and despite what you may have read into his letters, I find it hard to believe he was willing to give up the centuries (indeed even millennial) of story standardization (that is what makes a good story, and how its written) in order to facilitate some kind of egotistical notion that a 'new' kind of writing was needed. If you are telling me that this master of writing thought that the kind of writing present in the Silmarillion would somehow be entertaining, or replace, and/or become a new norm (given its broken, disjointed structure) then I'm sorry, I simply don't believe Tolkien could be so naive and/or egotistical.

    Nevertheless, this is simply just my opinion, and I'm sure you have yours too. If you enjoy the Silmarillion, I am really rather jealous, given how much I love Tolkiens work. I wish I could enjoy the later publications, but they simply don't compare (to me). I'm glad some people can enjoy them at least. /soapbox

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by equinoz View Post
    he was also a professor of English, and despite what you may have read into his letters, I find it hard to believe he was willing to give up the centuries (indeed even millennial) of story standardization (that is what makes a good story, and how its written) in order to facilitate some kind of egotistical notion that a 'new' kind of writing was needed. If you are telling me that this master of writing thought that the kind of writing present in the Silmarillion would somehow be entertaining, or replace, and/or become a new norm (given its broken, disjointed structure) then I'm sorry, I simply don't believe Tolkien could be so naive and/or egotistical.
    What on earth leads you to the conclusion that Tolkien was presenting a 'new' kind of writing?
    If anything is it is an outdated form of writing if we view it from 20 century standards. As someone who has read a HUGE amount of medieval and classical literature, both in translation and in the original languages, I see nothing 'novel' (in the sense of 'new') in Tolkien's style. It is drawn from the literature he studied which included a wide variety of genres since he was a philologist by trade. There is nothing in the published Silmarillion in terms of style that is 'new'.
    As for giving up "centuries (indeed even millennial) of story standardization (that is what makes a good story, and how its written)", sorry, such standardization does not exist. I am not trying to be rude or snobbish but I really think you may find Auerbach's Mimesis an interesting read since it shows how standards in story-telling have indeed changed over the millennia. There is a reason why many modern readers find the Illiad and the Odyssey and the Bible to be 'boring reads'.

    As for your statement that it is has a broken and disjointed structure, could you please elaborate? I think I know what you are alluding to but would rather be sure before commenting.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Ceredig View Post
    What on earth leads you to the conclusion that Tolkien was presenting a 'new' kind of writing?
    If anything is it is an outdated form of writing if we view it from 20 century standards. As someone who has read a HUGE amount of medieval and classical literature, both in translation and in the original languages, I see nothing 'novel' (in the sense of 'new') in Tolkien's style. It is drawn from the literature he studied which included a wide variety of genres since he was a philologist by trade. There is nothing in the published Silmarillion in terms of style that is 'new'.
    As for giving up "centuries (indeed even millennial) of story standardization (that is what makes a good story, and how its written)", sorry, such standardization does not exist. I am not trying to be rude or snobbish but I really think you may find Auerbach's Mimesis an interesting read since it shows how standards in story-telling have indeed changed over the millennia. There is a reason why many modern readers find the Illiad and the Odyssey and the Bible to be 'boring reads'.

    As for your statement that it is has a broken and disjointed structure, could you please elaborate? I think I know what you are alluding to but would rather be sure before commenting.
    Ok perhaps I worded things wrongly, I should have said instead you are suggesting that Tolkien wished to replace 'tried and tested' narrative with 'stating the facts of what happend' Odyssey/Bible style of writing (I think this answers the second questions of disjointed structure - jumping from point to point with (often no) temporal juncture).

    You are correct in saying that Tolkiens notes had this kind of format, however his novels where based firmly in contemporary prose. If you are saying he wished to bring back nordic/old style kinds of story telling, then perhaps you are right, but I find it hard to beleive somebody who had such good story telling skills and had such top selling books, would feel the need to. I'm sure that Tolkien had the ability to write (and publish) entire volumes written in Elvish and Orkish and any other languages he invented in his genius, and im sure a niche would buy them, but would he have gone against the grain (and reason) and done so? I dont think so.

    But this is my interpretation, and I appreciate that you have another, and probably even appreciate the style of writting found in some of Tolkiens more obscure works (that is something I can only be jelous of, I simply dont have the patience). In fact, it could all be summed up by my impatience (and probably the large population) with that type/style of writing, I for one dont beleive he intended the Sillmarllion to be published in that format, but for those who liked it, good on em.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by equinoz View Post
    but would he have gone against the grain (and reason) and done so? I dont think so.
    And here is I think the heart of our disagreement. Tolkien DID go against the grain. Tolkien was naïve, Why else would he have devoted so much effort to writing verse forms of his prose accounts? I mean the tale of Turin exists in allterative verse employing archaic diction. How much against the (modern) grain can you get? Look at all the material found in HoME. These were NOT rough notes. If they were, why were they revised over and over and over again over a period of many years and yet retained their essential structure and style. For instance, if Tolkien merely wanted to make notes on the eschatological fate of Men, why did he just not make notes as opposed to employing the literary genre of the colloquy to illustrate them?

    To call them merely notes is what I take exception to. That you wish to view them as the building blocks of something greater is entirely your right, but please understand that they each had an intrinsic worth in and of themselves to their author. And this is likely why the published Silmarillion seems so disjointed. The Silmarillion as published is in fact more than one literary work employing more than one literary genre in the same way the Bible is. Even the Quenta Silmarillion will suffer from this because certain chapters were far more fleshed out in Tolkien's mind and received far more artistic attention than other parts.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    3,934
    It is wonderfully epic, for a slow reader and a speed reader alike.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Ceredig View Post
    And here is I think the heart of our disagreement. Tolkien DID go against the grain. Tolkien was naïve, Why else would he have devoted so much effort to writing verse forms of his prose accounts? I mean the tale of Turin exists in allterative verse employing archaic diction.
    Exactly. He also wrote his own version of the Völsunga Saga in verse, alliterative verse to be exact, and it was later published as the Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún.

    How much against the (modern) grain can you get? Look at all the material found in HoME. These were NOT rough notes. If they were, why were they revised over and over and over again over a period of many years and yet retained their essential structure and style. For instance, if Tolkien merely wanted to make notes on the eschatological fate of Men, why did he just not make notes as opposed to employing the literary genre of the colloquy to illustrate them?

    To call them merely notes is what I take exception to. That you wish to view them as the building blocks of something greater is entirely your right, but please understand that they each had an intrinsic worth in and of themselves to their author. And this is likely why the published Silmarillion seems so disjointed. The Silmarillion as published is in fact more than one literary work employing more than one literary genre in the same way the Bible is. Even the Quenta Silmarillion will suffer from this because certain chapters were far more fleshed out in Tolkien's mind and received far more artistic attention than other parts.

    Exactly. What Tolkien wanted was to create an earlier mythology out of wich the later ones that he loved so much could have sprung. And you see this all over the place, even in the Lord of Rings or the Hobbit. Gandalf has very stricking similarities to Odin. Bilbo stealing a cup from Smaug comes right out of Beowulf. Also in the sword Narsil/Andúril. The sword breaks under Elendil when he dies but is reforged by his desendant Aragorn. This is much like the sword Gram out of Norse mythology. It is shattered when Sigmund dies but his son Sigurd reforges it and uses it to slay the dragon Fafnir. And thus we come right back to the Silmarillion. For Turin is not unlike Sigurd in many ways either. For he too slays a dragon, Glaurung, and like Sigurd it is said that when the end comes he will return from death to play a part in those events.

    Did Christopher Tolkien make mistakes with the Silmarillion? Of course, making Gil-galad Fingon's son is one example, I don't think anyone is saying that the Silmarillion is perfect as is. But I agree with Ceredig. Saying the Silmarillion was meant to be a novel or that it is now merely notes is a little too harsh. If nothing else is gives us a glimpse back into Middle-Earth long before the Ring. It lets us see the muthology that Tolkien had been working on almost his whole life. And for that, even if only for that, it should be very highly valued. And to the OP's original point, very much worth reading. So long as you read it as history, not a novel. Something I think perhaps Tolkien himself would approve of.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload