Morgoth's Ring

Have any of you ever read Morgoth's Ring? I am going to read it, as soon as I can get it from the library, and I'd like to know what you think of it.

That's the tenth in the series; I'm only starting anew with the first right now. What's in the History of Middle-earth? excerpt: <h3>Morgoth's Ring</h3> Ainulindalë II Extensive rewritings of the cosmogonical myth with both "Flat Earth" and "Round Earth" versions. Written: Round Earth version c. 1946, the rest after 1948 The Annals of Aman Annals of events from the beginning of the World to the hiding of Valinor. Often more a narrative than annalistic. A divergent text that ends before the coming of the Elves is also included. Also includes 'The Oath of Feanor' as an alliterative poem. Written: c. 1950 - 1951 with some later emendations The Later Quenta Silmarillion The "Valinorian" part of the Quenta (until the hiding of Valinor) in two different "phases". In the 'Second Phase' the 'Valaquenta' emerges and Finwë's second marriage becomes important. Includes 'Laws and Customs among the Eldar' and 'The Statute of Finwë and MÃ*riel and the debate of the Valar' in different versions. Written: The First Phase c. 1951, the Second c. 1958 Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth A dialog between the mortal woman Andreth and Findrod Felagund concerning death and the different fates of the Children of Eru and the marring of Men. The Commentary to the work includes many interesting comments on the natures of Elves and Men and also a short narrative that tells of the Fall of Men. In an appendix is included 'The Converse of Manwe and Eru' together with a recount of later conceptions of Elvish reincarnation. Written: c. 1959 Myths Transformed Late writings broadly concerned with the reinterpretation of central elements in the "legendarium". Discusses such things as the shape of the World and the creation of the Sun and Moon, the natures of Melkor and Sauron, the motives of the Valar, the nature and origin of Orcs and the real nature of Aman. Written: The late 1950s

Hmm, I was never really able to get into the whole HoME series. Maybe someday later. The Book of Lost Tales was just too weird for my tastes. Besides, it's just paraphrasing ever other novel, isn't it? Of course with earlier versions and more detail, but still...

I'm in the same boat as bmilder, but if you guys recommend it I'll try it.

The BOLT are not for the faint-hearted. Indeed, one reading is exactly all you need to get annoyed with all that interrupting commentary. But the visions are profound, once you get past the first, annoying reading. Things start clicking. that's all I'll say in its defense; they definately are not page-turners, but they magnify the depth of Silmarillion and LOTR because the material is often new, many shades more descriptive, or only referred to elsewhere. Perhaps trying the Unfinished Tales is a good way to build up the stamina to tackle HOME and actually *care*.

I've read Unfinished Tales. I liked those; those were stories. The stories like that Nargothrond one were a little odd because it focused on different details than the version in the Sil, but that's what makes the book unique. The Book of Lost Tales was... I don't even know what it was. Some guy we had never heard of before was living in a cottage somewhere...? Probably if I had given it a chance I might've liked it.

Anyone read the 'lays of beleriand'? I've heard of it, but never seen or read it.

The Lays of Beleriand is the 3rd part of the HoME but somewhat different It´s mainly the 2 stories: Turin Turambar and Beren&Luthien - but in verses!! (The part of the chanting-duel of Felagund and Sauron in the Silmarillion is from the Lays) If you think the LotR is 'simple' compared to the Silmarillion then have a look at this book - it -really- shows the top of Tolkien´s skill! Perhaps I should also mention that the poems are not finished, but more detailed. As a not-native english speaker I had some problems reading it at first, but I guess you wont .) What else is in the book: the usual commendary, early abandoned poems and a criticism by CS Lewis. I liked it very much.

Oh, yeah! I'm coming up on that sentry ship now.

There are several stories in the HoME series as well as other items such as notes, excerpts from the Letters etc. Morgoth's Ring has several of these, including the Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth. My favourites in the entire HoME series have to be The Lost Road (in the Lost Road), The Notion Club Papers in Sauron Defeated and the various narratives in Peoples of Middle Earth. Between them they have sparked several essays, of which 2 are on my site <A HREF=http://www.spiderspace.net/finduilas/index.htm >http://www.spiderspace.net/finduilas/index.htm </A> Morgoth's Ring is somewhat more philosophical than some of the books. I would have to recommend for starting the HoME series, to start with the Return of the Shadow and the History of the LOTR.

Your site's on my favorites list now. Hope you're happy. X-D

At last a site with a post that has something good to say about the BoLT. Right on, Hernalt! These 2 books are the most scorned & ignored of all Tolkien's. I, too, found them frustrating and awkward at first, but after several attempts eventually got right into them. They are, at times, more detailed, more beautiful and much deeper than the Silmarillion. And along with the Tales themselves, comes quite a description of Tol Eressea & its peoples which we get nowhere else. I think its the 'Eriol' or 'Elfwine of England' strain that gets people turned off. But I hate to cast the Tales aside as 'not part of the mythology', because in many ways they closely resemble the Silmarillion, while adding so much. So my question is... 'how can the Lost Tales fit in with the mythology?' They are said to be contained in the 'Golden Book of Tavrobel' written by Heorrenda son of Eriol, as told by Rumil & others in Tol Eressea. Is the Golden Book just another take on the Elves mythology, similar to the Red Book? After all, the Red Book is merely what Bilbo was told by the Elves of Rivendell, was it not? And is not the Red Book also what we know as The Hobbit/LOTR/Silmarillion/(UT?)? In other words, they are Bilbo's writings and not necessarily gospel. There are definitely errors in the Silmarillion that we know of - maybe errors made by Bilbo himself or the Elves of Rivendell even. Could enough errors in the telling of tales account for the discrepancies between the Red Book & Golden Book? Any thoughts?

I salute you! As far as BoLT, I think they are great too (for the fanatics! Of which I am happily one). I have read then a couple of times because they are such a different take on the Silmaril legends. The fall of Gondolin is absolutely astounding! BoLT is why Ecthelion is possibly my favorite character. As you mentioned, the description in many chapters far surpasses anything in the Silmarillion, and it is really an interesting study of how the Sil proper transformed over the years. Also, the more I read The Cottage of Lost Play, the more I am mesmerized by it. Too bad this was completely lost in the transition to the Silmarillion. As far as your main question is concerned, I really can't answer it save to say that I view it for what it is. On the literal front it's an early version of the Sil. On a fantastical front, it is the unfinished story of the Silmarillion as gathered by Eriol in Erresea and related to (and transcribed by) his son.

Thanks for the complement. As to the Book of Lost Tales, I like that type of story somewhat. My favourites from the HoME books are the Notion Club Papers and the Lost Road, which have somewhat simmilar styles though somewhat more complex. Yes you can get more detail on some stories from the BLT pair, and in fact I often will find more info from the early stories than from the silm.

BOLT have vol 1 & 2; did I miss one?