Welcome Guest 

Register

Forum Home » Books Discussion » Discuss the Books » Do we need HoME?
Author Topic:
orthanc5
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 120
Send Message
Avatar
Post Do we need HoME?
on: January 23, 2005 10:57
My orchestra is taking a trip to Chicago in April, and we will stop at the mall across from Borders, a huge bookstore, to avoid rush hour traffic before we come home. The bookstores in Holland (MI) don't have many Tolkien books, so I was wondering which book I should buy next. I went to Amazon.com to see the table of contents (that look inside the book feature is pretty nifty ), and it looks like most of the HoME are just rough drafts of the Silmarillion. Do they have any new information? I was hoping to buy a book or two with some new stories, but if there aren't any, I'll just start at the beginning of the series. I already have The Hobbit, LotR, the Silmarillion, and Unfinished Tales. Thanks!

[Edited on 23/1/2005 by orthanc5]
elvishmusician
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 405
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Do we need HoME?
on: January 23, 2005 09:29
I have only just begun the HoME books myself but reading them I found that though they cover a lot of the stuff that you already know about in the Sil, they also add to the Sil and change the stories a bit sometimes. I find them good though because it shows you how Tolkien played around with different ideas etc and also it shows some things he didn't include in the Sil which widen (well I thought it did) your view on some of the characters (like you find out more about them). I can not really tell which one is best to read next as I have only just finished off the Book of Lost Tales 1 (the first of the HoME series), but anyway I hope that helped a bit...
Nenthule
Council Member
Posts: 284
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Do we need HoME?
on: January 24, 2005 02:33
I've read the first Book of Lost Tales, and The Shaping of Middle Earth, and although i think that you can get a fairly good idea about Middle Earth and it's history just by reading LOTR, the Sil and Unfinished Tales, you can really understand it alot more fully by reading the HoME.
Even though i've only read 1 and 4 of HoME, I've heard that the last book is about the 4th age, and you certainly couldn't get that out of the Sil. One of the Books is called Morgoth's Ring, and i don't remember anything about that in the Sil.
I'd try them if I were you.
Morwinyoniel
Gallery Admin & Realm Head of Estë
Posts: 1637
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Do we need HoME?
on: January 24, 2005 03:11
I've heard that the last book is about the 4th age

Not exactly; it mostly deals with the making of the Appendices of LOTR, timelines and linguistic topics. But, it does contain the beginning of an unfinished story set in the early 4th Age.

Here's a good list of the contents of the different HoME volumes; from it you can see which volumes most probably contain stuff that you find interesting.
LadyEowyn_Of_Rohan
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 749
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Do we need HoME?
on: January 24, 2005 04:43
One of the Books is called Morgoth's Ring, and i don't remember anything about that in the Sil.
"Morgoth's ring" is a metaphor: Morgoth doesn't actually have a ring. You can read a little about it here. The book has a lot of interesting stuff, though - I'd read it if I were you.

I've only read the Book of Lost Tales 1 & 2 and Morgoth's Ring and part of The War of the Jewels so far. BoLT was interesting, and very different from the published Silmarillion. It was written very archaically... Morgoth's Ring had loads of interesing stuff. WotJ is just earlier drafts of The Silmarillion so far, but I'm not finished. So yes, I'd say HoME is worth reading, as far as I know, but it does repeat itself at points.
RiverWoman
Council Member
Posts: 120
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Do we need HoME?
on: January 25, 2005 03:41
I find HoME is not as sit-down-on-the-porch-with-a-cup-of-tea readable as LoTR. It presents different drafts and alternate versions. Someyimes a story will really get going and then it stops and gives 2 different variations and notes on the text. I do find it really useful for following the process by wich the ME took shape and changed over time. It also gives some idea what Christopher went through to bring Sil. together from various difficult to read longhand versions.
orthanc5
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 120
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Do we need HoME?
on: January 25, 2005 12:23
I find HoME is not as sit-down-on-the-porch-with-a-cup-of-tea readable as LoTR.

Lol, I read reference books like novels. Which books have the most new information?
RiverWoman
Council Member
Posts: 120
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Do we need HoME?
on: January 26, 2005 03:19
Clearly, reference books have more facts-per-page. And with some exceptions, such as LOTR, I am more likely to settle down with a history or philosophy book than a novel. HoME is essential for anyone who wants to be a scholar of ME, rather than just a fan or reader. It is great when you want to try and track down on the variants on some point. It annoys me sometimes though because just when a bit of narrative really gets going it is cut off - that's the nature of the work.
Námovaryar
Council Member
Posts: 46
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Do we need HoME?
on: January 31, 2005 02:34
The Lost Road and Other Writings would have the most new data. It includes the first part of a story Tolkien was going to write, and it also contains the Etymologies, which are fairly vital for learning Elvish.
atalante_star
Scholar of Imladris and Theodens Lady
Posts: 1365
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Do we need HoME?
on: February 01, 2005 06:58
I would suggest BoLT 1 and 2 - there's a lot of "new" information in those, even though the "new" information is early drafts of later stories. But the writing is beautiful, and they are maybe less bitty than other HoME books.
Fingolfin_Cw
Council Member
Posts: 22
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Do we need HoME?
on: February 22, 2005 12:44
I garantee you you will know alot and i really mean ALOT more after you have read HoME. Im on book 3 and its so much i didnt knew. READ EM!!
The_Last_Mariner_04
Council Member
Posts: 5
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Do we need HoME?
on: February 24, 2005 09:27
I think that HoME mostly makes the reader more aware of the author and of the processes and ideas Tolkien was developing in his works. I find it fascinating, but it's true that there are plenty of beautiful drafts of tales that are very enlightening if one wants to learn more about Tolkien's world. You could read the Sil and LoTR and still appreciate them in themselves; I kind of see the series like the study of Near Eastern myth and history in regards to the Bible: it enriches the experience and provides so much more background information on the authors that wrote these works.
atalante_star
Scholar of Imladris and Theodens Lady
Posts: 1365
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Do we need HoME?
on: July 08, 2007 04:59
I'm afraid I really can't agree with you about the canonicity of HoME. I understand all your points, and actually agree with them, but unfortunately the Silmarillion was published as a "completed work", even though edited by CT and Guy Kay (by the way, only some chapters have heavy editing).

Some people will not allow the SIlmarillion into their version of canon for that reason.

But .... for reasons of simplicity if nothing else, we have to accept one version of each story, and for right or wrong, I believe the version in the *published* SIlmarillion should be the accepted version of events.

Now, if you've seen some of my other threads, you'll see that I absolutely adore HoME and stick up for it whenever possible, so don't think I'm simply trying to say that HoME isn't useful. It is. It's fascinating to look at earlier and later versions of JRRT's works. Can you imagine how different a second edition of the SIlmarillion would be? But we can dream about that all we like. The fact remains that the Silmarillion that we have is the *only published version of those stories*, and unfortunately that does, IMO, make it slightly more canonical than HoME.

Furthermore, each of the books of HoME could be given a different "value" of canonicity. Morgoth's Ring, for example, is closer to the final published works than BoLT. I would be very hesitant to take anything from BoLT as part of the final mythology. Simply because it is a very early version of the work. If you look at the style, language, concepts of the work compared to canon, it's clear to see that the whole idea of the work has changed between the two. Morgoth's Ring, on the other hand, contains much later writings, and I am generally more than happy to take these at equal weight to the SIlmarillion [and that's being very generous among the world of Tolkienites. Most people won't agree that anything from HoME should be given equal weight to the Silmarillion ]

By the way, we are working on an essay about canon, and the issues surrounding canon. It should be ready soon.
Maedhros
Council Member
Posts: 23
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Do we need HoME?
on: July 08, 2007 05:00
You raise some good points, however, there are thigns from BoLT which we can take as (more or less), true. Things like the tale of the Fall of Gondolin. That is nowhere else told.

Also, you hit upon a point which I failed to elaborate upon, the differing levels of canocity within HoME itself. That is where CT's commentary comes into play. As the one who knows more about his father's writings that any other, I think if the commentary in HoME says that a version not in the Sil the the proper one, it should be taken as truth.

And some facts are excluded from the Silmarillion but were not changed. For example, there is a statement in Lost Road, very eary drafts, which still holds true, even thought I have nowhere else seen it stated (and it was confirmed to me by someone extremely versed that that part was not changed....how he knows I havn't the foggiest...he is a truely amazing loremaster).

Now, when you say that, "The fact remains that the Silmarillion that we have is the *only published version of those stories*" -- Therein lies the problem - they are not the only published versions. If you take published to mean by JRRT, then the entire Silmarillion was not published, if you mean by CT then HoME was published as well. Neither can in itself outweigh the other, which is why CT's commentary and dates given become crucial. If CT lets un know in HoME that what he put in the Silmarillion was incorrect, then it is incorrect.

I do not mean to be yelling or anything with this post, just expressing my opinion, so please don't take any offence, I mean none.
Nienna-of-the-Valar
Loremaster of the Edain
Posts: 578
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Do we need HoME?
on: July 08, 2007 05:01
There are some things found in the HoMe series which *are* considered canon, but for the most part, and certainly if something from HoMe contradicts something written in the published Silmarillion, the series is not canonical. As Atalante said The Silmarillion was published as a completed work, the HoMe series was not. The HoMe series, and BoLT in particular, is labeled as "earliest accounts and original ideas" of Tolkien, the Silmarillion has no such label.

Here is a thread we had recently discussing this subject where Atalante_star provided a link to an excellent article discussing canonicity in Tolkien's works. It is definitely worth a read!
Maedhros
Council Member
Posts: 23
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Do we need HoME?
on: July 08, 2007 05:02
frodos favorite girl -- Indeed, orcs are mortal.

Nienna -- I have read the page referenced by Atlante and do not really appreciate it as much you the two of you seem to. The writer gives pointers about how to judge canon while not expressing his own views really.

Also, the Silmarillion cannot be taken as a completed work. I will save most of my arguments about that for the canon thread to save this one from going off-track, but I will say this here: The Silmarillion was published as a book before CT read all his father's writings, so in general it cannot be taken as higher canon than HoME. I fell that HoME is a better source, because CT tells us in commentary when things were (or were likely) written, or which is the final version, whether it be the view just given or the one in the Silmarillion etc.
cirdaneth
Books Admin & Books Forum Moderator
Posts: 2069
Send Message
Avatar
Post Re: Do we need HoME?
on: May 21, 2012 02:28
*bump
PotbellyHairyfoot
Grandpa Moderator
Posts: 2929
Send Message
Avatar
Post Re: Do we need HoME?
on: May 23, 2012 11:02
WE don't NEED the HOME books , but many of us want the information contained in those volumes. The books were written to help satisfy us rabid fans on our quest to find out everything we can about Tolkien's worlds.
As to what is canon I generally consider The Hobbit, LOTR, the Silmarillion, and The Children of Hurin to be canon, and I'll also take as canon, for want of any alternatives, any stories that are internally consistent and don't conflict with those books. For example, there are many versions of some parts of the story of Galadriel and Celeborn and that limits what can be taken as canon. A brief description of Numenor, I'll take as accurate.
There will always be questions as to what is canon, as JRRT himself changed his ideas over time.
Hers an atypical example; Pre LOTR versions of The Hobbit can only be taken as canon until LOTR came out and a new edition was released consistent with LOTR.
cirdaneth
Books Admin & Books Forum Moderator
Posts: 2069
Send Message
Avatar
Post Re: Do we need HoME?
on: May 24, 2012 12:00
I am entirely in agreement with PB. I wouldn't be without HoME for anything. And as for 'canon' I'm not sure it exists strictly speaking. Since the tales purport to be from the varying accounts of Elves, Men, Dwarves, Wizards and Hobbits, many of them hearsay, there will be many versions, just as we have many versions of King Arthur, or Robin Hood, or even JFK for that matter. HoME is like a big box of chocs. Pour yourself a drink, lie back on the sofa and indulge.
yavanna01
Council Member
Posts: 8
Send Message
Avatar
Post Re: Do we need HoME?
on: May 28, 2012 03:41
This question may seem stupid, but can anyone tell me what HoME stands for? :/ Thank you!
Elthir
Council Member
Posts: 433
Send Message
Avatar
Post Re: Do we need HoME?
on: May 28, 2012 08:59
Yavanna01, here HoME stands for The History of Middle-Earth series, volumes one through twelve.


Atalante_star wrote: '... but unfortunately the Silmarillion was published as a "completed work", even though edited by CT and Guy Kay (...) But .... for reasons of simplicity if nothing else, we have to accept one version of each story, and for right or wrong, I believe the version in the *published* SIlmarillion should be the accepted version of events.


But if this is an argument for simplicity, as you say, in my opinion it's an artificial simplicity that asks me to alter my imagined world seemingly for the sake of easier discussion.

Generally speaking, Tolkien intended that his Silmarillion be presented as a one volume 'reader's version', and that's what Christopher Tolkien produced -- but I don't see that Christopher Tolkien ever meant to define canon with it, or to decide what is, or should be, 'internal' for readers.

And so things are complicated. Or can be

It would be easier to only discuss the 1977 Silmarillion, but I'm not sure that that's the future of Tolkien chat, perhaps because it seems too artificial (to enough people) to accept the constructed version as canon -- which is not a negative comment with respect to Christopher Tolkien's presentation however; or need not be, as again, I don't think defining canon was ever the real purpose behind the 1977 Silmarillion in any case...

... it just did define it, until HME, as it could hardly avoid being the version, being the only version.


cirdaneth wrote: 'And as for 'canon' I'm not sure it exists strictly speaking. Since the tales purport to be from the varying accounts of Elves, Men, Dwarves, Wizards and Hobbits, many of them hearsay, there will be many versions, just as we have many versions of King Arthur, or Robin Hood, or even JFK for that matter. HoME is like a big box of chocs. Pour yourself a drink, lie back on the sofa and indulge.


Hmm, I'm not sure I understand exactly what the suggestion is here, but to take a stab...

... you seem to mean canon as in an ultimate truth compared to that which is arguably hearsay or perspective, but for example, would you not agree that a poem about a troll who bakes bread for Perry the Winkle is certainly to be imagined as hailing from the 'Red Book' itself?

This is author-published description, and for me, whether or not the story is true, partially true, or complete Hobbit fancy, is a different question.


Also (again if I read this correctly in the first place) I can't agree that the variant texts in HME are to be viewed as the variations found in the tales of King Arthur or Robin Hood...

... these things are not equivalent in my opinion: with Tolkien we have one author writing and rewriting, draft text after draft text over the years, all in order to end up with, again generally speaking, one internal story. This is quite different from various authors or poets working with the same or similar characters or themes, who themselves (or at least some of them I would guess) likely had draft versions that they never intended to be taken as 'internal' either.

World building is part of the art of Middle-earth of course, and the inner consistency of reality is a notable consideration, so if readers simply look at Tolkien's contradictory draft texts, even some of them, as intended variations within a legendarium, are we not arguably underming the author's world for him, by introducing inconsistency where none really exists?

Of course, if you mean the intended variation (or arguably intended) within the internal world then that's a different matter (the Elessar tales, The Drowning of Anadune, for two notable examples).

Tolkien did not intend that his world be perfectly consistent, or that he should answer every question, but again that is very different from simply characterizing, for example, Quenta Noldorinwa as an internal variant of Quenta Silmarillion, or characterizing all the variations surrounding Galadriel's history as internal, as this would automatically raise contradictions that were never intended by the author himself.

But maybe you mean none of this? Again I'm not exactly sure
Elthir
Council Member
Posts: 433
Send Message
Avatar
Post Re: Do we need HoME?
on: May 29, 2012 12:17
PotbellyHairyfoot wrote '(...) There will always be questions as to what is canon, as JRRT himself changed his ideas over time. Hers an atypical example; Pre LOTR versions of The Hobbit can only be taken as canon until LOTR came out and a new edition was released consistent with LOTR.'


This is an extension of my earlier point: I would say that Tolkien himself accepted the first edition of The Hobbit as Bilbo's somewhat variant version of the same story, written elsewhere.

The reader then knows that the first edition Hobbit is somewhat untrue, later editions being truer. But all the versions are author-published, and authorized as texts hailing from the imagined characters of Middle-earth (along with some commentary from the modern translator as well).

Or for example, the Dwarves say that the first of the Seven was given to Durin III by the Elven-smiths themselves, not by Sauron. True or not? If I think it's untrue, it's still true that the text says that that's what the Dwarves say. In other words, Appendix A Durin's Folk is still canon, whether this detail is true or not.
Members Online
Print Friendly, PDF & Email