I love The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. I've rated the various books that make them up between four and five stars. I have, in fact, read The Lord of the Rings through three times, and felt I got more out of each reading. However, that doesn't mean I relished every word. I hated the songs, and I hated the parts where Tolkien sounded like the love child of Beowulf and the King James Bible--and in Silmarillion that holds for the entire book. The King James Bible at least comes by it's "thee" and "thou" honestly. It was translated to be true to the vernacular of its day. But when a modern such as Tolkien uses such archaic language as "wilt," "thither," "behold," "of old" and "it came to pass," I grind my teeth. Every character or place it seemed had to have the etymology of their names explained in detail: Ar-feiniel she was called, the White Lady of the Noldor, for she was pale, though her hair was dark, and she was never arrayed but in silver and white.
But my problems with the book go beyond the prose style. I gather from the introduction by his son Christopher that these tales were the background for Tolkien's Middle Earth and they weren't in a publishable form when Tolkien died and had to be put in order by Christopher--and I think it shows. Because this isn't a novel or a collection of stories really. Flip through the pages you won't spot much dialogue. Although obviously inspired by works such Milton's Paradise Lost, these don't, like that epic, feel fleshed out with real scenes. Probably "Of Beren and Luthien" felt most developed--it was my favorite story such as it was. This book violates the most basic of storytelling rules--"show, don't tell." And that's deadly.
Tolkien did make some interesting choices. He combined a very Miltonian strand strongly reminiscent of the Lucifer story with a one true God, Iluvatar, and gets his Pagan pantheon in the "Valar"--subordinate beings, such as angels, but with very specific attributes and functions more reminiscent of polytheism. The "similarilli" of the title (meaning "radiance of pure light") are "primeval jewels" of great power in contention between the elves and a "Dark Lord" called Melkor (also Morgoth, because since when is Tolkien happy with just one name?) To me the outline of the plot was far too reminiscent in that way of The Lord of the Rings and the whole thing far too derivative of biblical tropes and mythologies. And some would say that's the point, but especially told in this way, I wasn't feeling the fascination of this faux mythology.
I wouldn't have lasted past page 50, but I had a deal with a friend. I read the entire book, and she watches an entire season of Buffy. And since (not including genealogies, index and appendixes) this was only 304 pages, I felt I might as well suffer through the rest for that pay off. That friend tells me I have to think of this more as a history text than a narrative--which I think is an insult to the many fine writers of history from Thucydides to Stephen Ambrose. I think to love this, to genuinely love this, you can't just love The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, you have to be fascinated by them--so fascinated that learning things such as the origins of Sauron and the orcs and the dwarves keeps you riveted. I find I'm not enough of a fan to not feel pain reading this.
I know technically Silmarillion precedes chronologically the events of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. But please, please--if you're new to Tolkien, don't start with Silmarillion. You might be put off Tolkien for life--and that would be a shame.
