Which Silmarillion and/or Annal Do You Like Best? Is Most Expansive

[Duguay]

Hi Tolkien Lore Masters! I was curious to know if anyone has a favorite version of the lore, or version of the Silmarillion (Lost Tales, or Sketch? Quenta Noldorinwa or Quenta Silmarillion?). Or does anyone favor one (or more!) of the Annals?

I'm also curious about which ones are the most expansive. I already know from bouncing around in The History of Middle-earth that versions of the Silmarillion end early, and don't include or skip certain parts of the narrative. I'm curious, regardless of when a given version of the Silmarillion ends early, which ones are the more detailed with the material they cover?

I can imagine that this is a complicated question, with a complicated answer. I have a somewhat simplified impression that the published Silmarillion used the Quenta Silmarillion from The Shaping of Middle-earth as something of a baseline, using other material from other drafts to fill in some narrative gaps. And I wondered about Christopher Tolkien's commentary that he would sometimes streamline stuff to match the baseline and I would wonder about meaningful content that would be lost, emotionally or informationally meaningful. As an example, there was some emotional content that excised from The Wanderings of Hurin, and it kept the tragedy experienced by characters at a distance. When I read across the different versions of The Wanderings of Hurin and the Ruin of Doriath, I was most disappointed by the Quenta Silmarillion in The Lost Road volume, which seemed so sparse.

Curious about other readers impressions, let me know!

 

[Elthir]

Hi Tolkien Lore Masters! I was curious to know if anyone has a favorite version of the lore, or version of the Silmarillion (Lost Tales, or Sketch? Quenta Noldorinwa or Quenta Silmarillion?).

Well, I can't pick any version without Nerwende Artanis Galadriel! Which leaves me with Quenta Silmarillion in general -- and I like the revised early 1950s version (basically the tale chosen for the Constructed Silmarillion), which agrees with her history as later published in The Road Goes Ever On.

I'm curious, regardless of when a given version of the Silmarillion ends early, which ones are the more detailed with the material they cover?

Hmm. LQSII adds detail not before seen in earlier versions (including a pre-existing Sun "detail"), but there isn't much of LQSII though!

And not that you said otherwise, but Quenta Silmarillion is supposed to be seen as relatively "brief" (which is admittedly subjective). With respect to QN for example, Christopher Tolkien explains: "The title makes it very plain that while Q was written in a finished manner, my father saw it as a compendium, a "brief history" that was "drawn from" a much longer work; and this aspect remained an important element in his conception of "The Silmarillion" properly so called."

When I read across the different versions of The Wanderings of Hurin and the Ruin of Doriath, I was most disappointed by the Quenta Silmarillion in The Lost Road volume, which seemed so sparse.

Maybe you mean Qenta Noldorinwa from The Shaping of Middle-Earth? The Quenta Silmarillion of The Lost Road volume basically "skips" over this part of the story.

Although I guess skipping it could be said to be. . . really sparse

 

[Duguay]

Thank you for your perspective, Elthir! You always have well thought out for many questions that keep coming to me as I bounce around the Legendarium and plan my long-term reading.

Well, I can't pick any version without Nerwende Artanis Galadriel! Which leaves me with Quenta Silmarillion in general -- and I like the revised early 1950s version (basically the tale chosen for the Constructed Silmarillion), which agrees with her history as later published in The Road Goes Ever On.

A quick clarifying question, do you mean the song-cycle book? I keep hearing about this book, and how it has invaluable material not found anywhere else...is that right?

Hmm. LQSII adds detail not before seen in earlier versions (including a pre-existing Sun "detail"), but there isn't much of LQSII though!

I saw it come up in a post on reddit, providing details that characterize Manwe's attempt to reconcile Feanor and his followers with the rest of the Noldor as less commanding and more gentle and conciliatory. A passage that makes Manwe's outreach to Feanor as more nuanced. While investigating, I also came across a passage that seemed like a more expanded account of the fate of Finwe and the Silmarils by Morgoth while Feanor was away at the festival. These things are what prompted my curiosity and this topic thread.

Totally anecdotally, do you have a preference about the Sun always existing, or do you like the versions where it is made after The Trees are lost? Do you have a preference for Tolkien changing the world so that it was always round, or do you like the versions that have it as flat and changed toward the end of the Second Age?

And not that you said otherwise, but Quenta Silmarillion is supposed to be seen as relatively "brief" (which is admittedly subjective). With respect to QN for example, Christopher Tolkien explains: "The title makes it very plain that while Q was written in a finished manner, my father saw it as a compendium, a "brief history" that was "drawn from" a much longer work; and this aspect remained an important element in his conception of "The Silmarillion" properly so called."

Interesting, I probably haven't come across that explanation of Christopher about the various versions.

Maybe you mean Qenta Noldorinwa from The Shaping of Middle-Earth? The Quenta Silmarillion of The Lost Road volume basically "skips" over this part of the story.

Ah! It looks like I misremembered. You are right, The Wanderings of Hurin and the Ruin of Doriath are not in The Lost Road's Quenta Silmarillion. What I remember reading was from The Lost Road, but it was from that book's version of the Annals of Beleriand. When I say I read across THoMe to learn about the different version of Urin/Hurin's fate, and Ruin of Doriath, I also looked in the Annals as well.

The annals seem useful for extra material as well. It's why I have notes for a re-read of The Silmarillion is some distant future time to include the passage from one of the later annals (The Annals of Aman, I think) that has the actual wording of Feanor speaking the original version of The Oath (rather than just settle for the paraphrasing passage in the published Silmarillion.

It's why I also ask about people's favorite Annals, or which are the most expansive, detailed Annals, as well as about the different versions of The Silmarillion compendium. I've been trying to "collect" the little shards of lore from posters online here or in Reddit that are scattered throughout the different versions, that aren't major contradictions and enrich the narrative and emotional details. I understood Feanor's character (and psychological issues) after reading a lot of The Laws and Customs of the Eldar, the tragedy of Miriel and the Statute that was declared by the Valar because of Finwe's grief.

Although I guess skipping it could be said to be. . . really sparse

Yeah...so sparse as to be non-existent! 🤣

 

[Elthir]

A quick clarifying question, do you mean the song-cycle book? I keep hearing about this book, and how it has invaluable material not found anywhere else...is that right?

Yes! The Road Goes Ever On, A Song Cycle, published by JRRT in the 1960s.

As for me, I have to admit I really don't pay attention to the first 62 (!) pages (going by the Harper Collins version with free CD -- although I also have another HMCO version). It's rather the scripts, translations and commentary on Namárie and A Elbereth Gilthoniel that I love -- pages 65 to 76.

For Galadriel fans: since Tolkien looks at her lament, we and I happily get more information about her. You'll also find "stuff" about metre, stress, pronunciation. . . but if that kind of thing bores certain folks, you'll also get smatterings of lore (Celeborn confirmed as a Sinda again) -- for example, smatterings within commentary on various words (miruvóre for instance) -- and especially Fanuilos, in which Tolkien goes a bit into the fanar of the Valar.

aside in smaller letters: these days information about the "raiment" of the Valar can be found elsewhere, including Parma Eldalamberon 17 or The Nature of Middle-Earth, and while the RGEO version is shorter, again, I like that it's published by Tolkien himself.

Anyway, there are also the scripts from Tolkien's own hand, for folks interested in the Tengwar.

"Totally anecdotally, do you have a preference about the Sun always existing (. . .) Tolkien changing the world so that it was always round, . . ."

I'm very happy with the way I think Tolkien solved these issues: a multi-perspective legendarium.

But if forced to choose one [and this answer is open to change tomorrow or next year]: I guess it would be flat-to-round-world slash Sun-as-tree-fruit!

And yet if I did that, how to explain Treebeard seemingly talking about the sun existing before the Elves crossed the Sea

The annals seem useful for extra material as well.

Another point about the Annals (if I may blather on). . .

. . . Christopher Tolkien indeed mined them for his constructed version of QS. According to Doug Kane in his book Arda Reconstructed [in response to a statement from Charles Noad]: "However, my closer analysis reveals that Christopher Tolkien did more than "fill out where necessary and finish" with passages from the various annals. Indeed, as will be seen, a large percentage (probably even a majority) of the material published as the Quenta Silmarillion was actually taken from the Annals of Aman (. . .) or the Grey Annals."

The justification here appears to be, according to Christopher Tolkien himself, that his father, at one point, seemed no longer to regard the Annals and QS as separate works, further speculating that if Tolkien "had continued this last version he would have "cannibalized" the Annals where he chose to" and regarded the Annals like a draft text.

I tend to agree. I think the later Annals were (at least) becoming more like Quenta Silmarillion in style and detail, and ultimately The Tale of Years (of the First Age) was to replace the Annals as a tradition within the Legendarium.

Meow. For what that's worth!

Yeah...so sparse as to be non-existent! 🤣

LOL 🐾

 

[Ricardo]

Hi Tolkien Lore Masters! I was curious to know if anyone has a favorite version of the lore, or version of the Silmarillion (Lost Tales, or Sketch? Quenta Noldorinwa or Quenta Silmarillion?). Or does anyone favor one (or more!) of the Annals?

I'm also curious about which ones are the most expansive. I already know from bouncing around in The History of Middle-earth that versions of the Silmarillion end early, and don't include or skip certain parts of the narrative. I'm curious, regardless of when a given version of the Silmarillion ends early, which ones are the more detailed with the material they cover?

I can imagine that this is a complicated question, with a complicated answer. I have a somewhat simplified impression that the published Silmarillion used the Quenta Silmarillion from The Shaping of Middle-earth as something of a baseline, using other material from other drafts to fill in some narrative gaps. And I wondered about Christopher Tolkien's commentary that he would sometimes streamline stuff to match the baseline and I would wonder about meaningful content that would be lost, emotionally or informationally meaningful. As an example, there was some emotional content that excised from The Wanderings of Hurin, and it kept the tragedy experienced by characters at a distance. When I read across the different versions of The Wanderings of Hurin and the Ruin of Doriath, I was most disappointed by the Quenta Silmarillion in The Lost Road volume, which seemed so sparse.

Curious about other readers impressions, let me know!

I have to go with Quenta Silmarillion. I agree that's the version CT used as a base.

While there were some mistakes, Christopher Tolkien's compilation of the story was great. It is the one that makes the most sense, a fluid narrative and that's probably because it was set to be published and many of the contradictions and gaps were filled.

Of course, it would have been great if JRR Tolkien himself finished the Silmarillion but unfortunately it didn't happen. I will forever thank Christopher Tolkien for giving a readable version of the Silmarillion

 

[Duguay]

Yes! The Road Goes Ever On, A Song Cycle, published by JRRT in the 1960s.

As for me, I have to admit I really don't pay attention to the first 62 (!) pages (going by the Harper Collins version with free CD -- although I also have another HMCO version). It's rather the scripts, translations and commentary on Namárie and A Elbereth Gilthoniel that I love -- pages 65 to 76.

For Galadriel fans: since Tolkien looks at her lament, we and I happily get more information about her. You'll also find "stuff" about metre, stress, pronunciation. . . but if that kind of thing bores certain folks, you'll also get smatterings of lore (Celeborn confirmed as a Sinda again) -- for example, smatterings within commentary on various words (miruvóre for instance) -- and especially Fanuilos, in which Tolkien goes a bit into the fanar of the Valar.

aside in smaller letters: these days information about the "raiment" of the Valar can be found elsewhere, including Parma Eldalamberon 17 or The Nature of Middle-Earth, and while the RGEO version is shorter, again, I like that it's published by Tolkien himself.

Anyway, there are also the scripts from Tolkien's own hand, for folks interested in the Tengwar.

Thank you for this look into The Road Goes Ever On. It's a work that keeps coming up for Tolkien fans looking for the kind of stuff I've been looking for. I think at some point I knew I was going to find myself putting the effort in to getting a copy. After reading this post I went looking for it and found a copy; so I've finally sent off for it. Should be interesting to see, and my reading is circling me closer to The History of Galadriel and Celeborn, so I'm hoping this is a good bit of synergy for the momentum of my Tolkien reading schedule.

I'm very happy with the way I think Tolkien solved these issues: a multi-perspective legendarium.

But if forced to choose one [and this answer is open to change tomorrow or next year]: I guess it would be flat-to-round-world slash Sun-as-tree-fruit!

And yet if I did that, how to explain Treebeard seemingly talking about the sun existing before the Elves crossed the Sea

Nice, thank you for sharing! I think for me, because I read The Silmarillion and didn't go any deeper, the published Silmarillion has had 15-20 years to be "definitive"-ish, so that's two decades to sit comfortably those versions of the legend. I feel a little sad unsettled sometimes about what reading passages from THoMe does to my perspective on the published Silmarillion, yet I still greatly enjoyed re-reading it a year or two ago. There's great beauty in many passages in the published Silmarillion (and therefore in the counterpart passages in THoMe).

Another point about the Annals (if I may blather on). . .

. . . Christopher Tolkien indeed mined them for his constructed version of QS. According to Doug Kane in his book Arda Reconstructed [in response to a statement from Charles Noad]: "However, my closer analysis reveals that Christopher Tolkien did more than "fill out where necessary and finish" with passages from the various annals. Indeed, as will be seen, a large percentage (probably even a majority) of the material published as the Quenta Silmarillion was actually taken from the Annals of Aman (. . .) or the Grey Annals."

Ah! I recently got a copy of Arda Reconstructed, just to satisfy my curiosity. Although I felt a little embarrassment, as I get the impression Doug Kane is dismissed for being overly critical of Christopher Tolkien's construction of the published Silmarillion. If nothing else I got the impression he and the book are controversial. Yet I was surprised to find that some of my own reservations about small edits Christopher made that seemed make passages less emotionally impacting were also some of the same criticisms that Arda Reconstructed gives voice to. I'm grateful about all the hard work Christopher did, but I also have mixed feelings about the presentation of these works.

The justification here appears to be, according to Christopher Tolkien himself, that his father, at one point, seemed no longer to regard the Annals and QS as separate works, further speculating that if Tolkien "had continued this last version he would have "cannibalized" the Annals where he chose to" and regarded the Annals like a draft text.

I tend to agree. I think the later Annals were (at least) becoming more like Quenta Silmarillion in style and detail, and ultimately The Tale of Years (of the First Age) was to replace the Annals as a tradition within the Legendarium.

Interesting, I did not know that! I've been getting the impression that one ignores the annals at their own peril. Even just a little exploration awakens a feeling of intrigue about what may be hidden among them.

Meow. For what that's worth!

Raoh!

I have to go with Quenta Silmarillion. I agree that's the version CT used as a base.

Just to double check, do you mean the one in The Lost Road...? Or the version in The Shaping of Middle-earth?

While there were some mistakes, Christopher Tolkien's compilation of the story was great. It is the one that makes the most sense, a fluid narrative and that's probably because it was set to be published and many of the contradictions and gaps were filled.

I like The Silmarillion, and I was surprised by how much more I took to it on a slow re-read, see as I mention above. I do wish Christopher had left a couple sentences in here and there which would have given a little more emotional impact, yet I agree it's constructed well.

Of course, it would have been great if JRR Tolkien himself finished the Silmarillion but unfortunately it didn't happen. I will forever thank Christopher Tolkien for giving a readable version of the Silmarillion

I'm glad we have it's expansion of Middle-earth's lore, and I'm glad that we can have a deeper appreciation of what was really important to Tolkien, so much so that he worked on it for most of his life. I love the idea that it was something he found fun to tinker and play with, a hobby of worldbuilding for worldbuilding's sake.

 

[Elthir]

Interesting, I did not know that! I've been getting the impression that one ignores the annals at their own peril. Even just a little exploration awakens a feeling of intrigue about what may be hidden among them.

For clarity perhaps, I'm not suggesting* that anyone ignore the Annals, only that they were arguably (as Christopher Tolkien appears to argue anyway) becoming less distinct from the Quenta Silmarillion tradition, and (also) arguably to be replaced by The Tales of Years, which would give us a nice addition to Appendix B, The Return of the King.

I think that when JRRT certainly thought of the Annals as distinct traditions, they were, or could be,
a good vehicle for details not found in Quenta Silmarillion, and perhaps not found elsewhere in the Legendarium, as well as a possibly good vehicle for P(S)C (purposed (seeming) contradictions).

*nor am I suggesting that you're suggesting that I'm suggesting that anyone ignore the Annals

 

[Duguay]

I think that when JRRT certainly thought of the Annals as distinct traditions, they were, or could be,
a good vehicle for details not found in Quenta Silmarillion, and perhaps not found elsewhere in the Legendarium, as well as a possibly good vehicle for P(S)C (purposed (seeming) contradictions).

It pains me to admit it, but I think I'm a bit of a philistine about it. I feel like I'm a less refined, more vulgar Tolkien enthusiast. When you say that the annals are potentially a resource for mining more details, more lore...I fear that this is the bottom line for me. I'm so sorry! It's the reason I started this thread, to keep chasing that bottom line! Crafting my hypothetical future read through of The Silmarillion, with all the extra shards of lore I can tease out of The History of Middle-earth, to shape a home-made Frankenstein's monster of a The Silmarillion Expanded Edition. Whether I should or shouldn't think of it that way, madness or not.

I haven't ruled out the option of reading THoME from start to finish, after I've finished my current chosen trajectory through The Legendarium, mind.

 

[Elthir]

Well, I'm guessing a lot of us imagine our own "Personal Silmarillions" -- I imagine mine, but it's not in any way a comment on Christopher Tolkien's version, as I don't believe the 1977 compilation was ever meant to be taken as canonical in any case.

That said, I do follow certain rules when imagining "my" Silmarillion, however.

My rules!

 

[Deimos]

Well, I'm guessing a lot of us imagine our own "Personal Silmarillions" -- I imagine mine, but it's not in any way a comment on Christopher Tolkien's version, as I don't believe the 1977 compilation was ever meant to be taken as canonical in any case.

That said, I do follow certain rules when imagining "my" Silmarillion, however.

My rules!

(With apologies to Sheldon...): "Silmarillion meum, regulae meae."