The Children of Hurin

[The BlackBear]

I read it just about two years ago, and somehow cannot recall the exac plot, but I don't remember having a problem with it at all. Thumbs up from me. :dunno:

[Racker]

I read it back when it came out, before I read The Silmarillion. I agree that I don't see how it could be confusing; even not having read the Sil. The first couple of chapters tell you everything you really need to know; there's a war between the Forces of Good and a bad guy, the bad guy catches one of the good guys and curses his family, tragedy ensues.

Not to say I didn't like it, because I did. I think the last few pages are some of the most moving imagery Tolkien ever wrote. In fact I'd say that the book was quite a downer, and normally I wouldn't say this but perhaps it was a bit too dark. There's barely a ray of sunshine in the entire book.

[Talleyrand]

I feel as if the whole affair is a really bad management of Morgoth's resources - i mean well done one of your captives is sad now but it did kind of cost you a dragon

[NogrodtheGreat]

Haha, well Glaurung did manage to destroy Nargothrond so I suppose he achieved something. But Morgoth doesn't seem to have taken Turin's heroism into account.

[andrew_]

More of a "Great Worm" than a dragon, plus they did make huge inroads into Beleriand.

[Calibandar]

More of a "Great Worm" than a dragon, plus they did make huge inroads into Beleriand.

Well, he's known as the Father of Dragons. I see your point, he cannot fly, and conversely, I believe Smaug is referred to as the Old Worm or Great Worm somewhere as well. Cold drakes/fire drakes/ flying fire drakes are the 3 categories in Middle Earth, and of the first there are no examples as I recall.

[Talleyrand]

Well, he's known as the Father of Dragons. I see your point, he cannot fly, and conversely, I believe Smaug is referred to as the Old Worm or Great Worm somewhere as well. Cold drakes/fire drakes/ flying fire drakes are the 3 categories in Middle Earth, and of the first there are no examples as I recall.

I forgot about that - which makes it even worse, you lost your big daddy dragon but its all worth it cause now Hurin is sad

[Westfold-II]

I suppose the risk for Glaurung by Túrin and others wouldn't have been much different in any case, and his loss wasn't necessarily reckoned with. I would see it more as part of a greater scheme to weaken his enemies physically and spiritually. Morgoth's hate is also not very rational, and a "personal" issue with men and elves. The fate of the world is basically its storytelling.

[Clueless Northman]

In fact I'd say that the book was quite a downer, and normally I wouldn't say this but perhaps it was a bit too dark. There's barely a ray of sunshine in the entire book.

Indeed.

It always amazes me to see Tolkien fans friends complaining that ASOIAF (or GOT TV series, for that matter) is too dark for their tastes; I mean, they managed to read the Silmarillion, and most of it is darker and more depressing as far as "everbody dies and everything is doomed". Heck, even the stories that seem to end not too badly (Beren and Luthien) ultimately have a bleak ending (with what happens to them after the not-totally-happy ending).

[naz]

Indeed.

It always amazes me to see Tolkien fans friends complaining that ASOIAF (or GOT TV series, for that matter) is too dark for their tastes; I mean, they managed to read the Silmarillion, and most of it is darker and more depressing as far as "everbody dies and everything is doomed". Heck, even the stories that seem to end not too badly (Beren and Luthien) ultimately have a bleak ending (with what happens to them after the not-totally-happy ending).

Which "Tolkien" fans are you talking about it? Because most "Tolkien" fans these days are actually just LOTR or Hobbit fans. Or even worse, LOTR movie-only fans. Every Tolkien fan I've ever met, i.e. ones who've read and enjoyed the Sil and UT (and perhaps HoME, but that's stretching it), actually love ASOIAF.

[NogrodtheGreat]

Yes, there's a lot of Tolkien fans who more or less ignore the Sil and CoH, or amalgamate those works into the generally Providential worldview of LoTR. Those who do take the Sil and CoH seriously are, I would think, more likely also to be fans of other fantasy more generally.

[Clueless Northman]

Oh, a few old-timers book fans - not fans who lived in a cave for decades and discovered Tolkien with the movies. Weirdly, these few persons seem to like the Silmarillion, Turin included, but can't find any enjoyment in ASOIAF and therefore lose any interest after some time (and I don't think the ones I'm thinking of ever made it to the Red Wedding).

Of course, I also know other (probably more numerous) Tolkien fans who like both.

It's just that the "Real life is already a downer so I don't want to deal with this in fiction/fantasy as well" line of arguing against GRR Martin sounds surprising from people who actually went beyond Hobbit and LOTR.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

When my father reads the Silmilrillion he stops when he gets to that part and reads the Children of Hurin. I was confused as fuck the when I read them.

[naz]

To be fair, you can't really liken Children of Hurin (or the Sil) with ASOIAF simply because they're both "dark". The former is written more as a myth or legend whereas the latter is a more straightforward descriptive narrative. While ASOIAF is dark, it's also more gritty and realistic. Chlidren of Hurin, while dark and tragic, is certainly not as explicit or gritty; that may be the reason for your friends' distaste. I can understand some fantasy fans not wanting to read about actual sex and gore and other bodily functions. Or characters using obscenities. Mind you, I'm not one of those, but I can understand their reluctance. The fact that both works are "dark" is too shallow of a comparison.

[NogrodtheGreat]

CoH is more 'gritty' than LoTR though, it must be said, if not as explicit about sex and gore (thought there is some gore), and its worldview is probably just as 'dark' as Martin's if not more so.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Indeed.

It always amazes me to see Tolkien fans friends complaining that ASOIAF (or GOT TV series, for that matter) is too dark for their tastes;

Personally, I've always found it irritating that ASOIAF fans who have only ever seen Jackson's movies like to smugly claim that Martin is so much darker than Tolkien, without ever taking it account The Silmarillion, The Children of Hurin, or even the underpinnings of LOTR as a book (yes, Frodo doesn't die. He fails, then returns irreparably traumatised. You can put a character through the wringer without killing them).

[Arthmail]

Children of Hurin is not dark, its tragic. Sorrow practically laces the pages. I suppose you could call it dark, but there is an unrelenting feeling of falling to the work that can't be compared to Martin's work. It replaces guts and gore with the inevitability of personal failure and loss.

I also bought the expensive hardcover special edition of this book, which I have not read in some time, but loved, so I will admit some bias. I think I will read it again.

[NogrodtheGreat]

The hardcover edition is lovely ;-). The paper is so nice to touch! But yes, while there is some hint of blood and guts, you're right - it is mostly the sense of unfailing and inevitable Doom that marks the story out, which despite all Martin's 'darkness' he doesn't really evoke. Still, an interesting comparison.

I read the Hobbit recently, and what struck me was that Tolkien is remarkably able at writing in so many styles and registers - comic in The Hobbit and Farmer Giles of Ham (which is actually quite hilarious), seriously and archaically in the Silmarillion, flowery and almost parodically in the Book of Lost Tales, tragically in the Children of Hurin and everything else in between in the Lord of the Rings. Perhaps the only style he never mastered is that favored by modern fantasy writers from Martin to Bakker to Lynch: the style of the conventional modern novel. But I suppose we can't hold that against him. ;)

[thecryptile]

Farmer Giles of Ham (which is actually quite hilarious)

Especially the dialogues between Farmer Giles and Chrysophylax. They have a Vancean repartee.

[PetrusOctavianus]

The hardcover edition is lovely ;-). The paper is so nice to touch! But yes, while there is some hint of blood and guts, you're right - it is mostly the sense of unfailing and inevitable Doom that marks the story out, which despite all Martin's 'darkness' he doesn't really evoke. Still, an interesting comparison.

You can virtually hear the footsteps of Doom when reading about Turin Turambar.

I read the Hobbit recently, and what struck me was that Tolkien is remarkably able at writing in so many styles and registers - comic in The Hobbit and Farmer Giles of Ham (which is actually quite hilarious), seriously and archaically in the Silmarillion, flowery and almost parodically in the Book of Lost Tales, tragically in the Children of Hurin and everything else in between in the Lord of the Rings. Perhaps the only style he never mastered is that favored by modern fantasy writers from Martin to Bakker to Lynch: the style of the conventional modern novel. But I suppose we can't hold that against him. ;)

Excactly. Typically people who thinks "Tolkein [sic] was a poor writer" has only read 100 pages of Lord of the Rings.