Suffice it to say for now that I think having smaller (heroic) narratives such as Túrin's story (like those of Achilles or Odysseus or Sigurd or Beowulf) that fit into a larger network of legend and mythic history does create the illusion of a cultural heritiage.

1. What does he mean by "their repute as strange and inaccessible in mode and manner," and do you feel that this notion is valid?

Nearly all of my friends have not read LOTR, for two reasons: The genre doesn’t interest them, and they find the writing too difficult for it to be an enjoyable read. I’d say the latter is what Christopher is referring to when he talks about LOTR and the Silmarillion having a reputation for being ‘inaccessible’.

One reason many readers love LOTR is because of Tolkien’s background in philology. That reputation might also give potential readers pause for thought. “Is this going to a pointy-head version of fantasy? ‘Cause I like my reading light and fun.”

2. Also CT said: "...there was a good cause for presenting my father's long version of the legend of THE CHILDREN OF HURIN as an independent work...

I suppose Christopher is limited by how many stories are complete, rather than having huge gaps in them. All we can do is trust that he’s made the right decision because none of us knows what other information is in Tolkien’s notes.

3. Does every "people", the English in this case, need such a legendarium to validate their culture?

Intriguing question!

I think it’s part of human nature to want to ‘belong’, whether it’s to other people or to a country. Having stories that link you to your ancestors and to earlier times on the land you stand on, adds to your own identity. So I’ll go with ‘yes’ to your question.

4. Do you think that this story is a fair showing to readers unfamiliar with the First Age what life was like in the First Age?

I think CoH is an incomplete Middle-earth and doesn’t stand up well without the background of The Silmarillion. Whereas hints of The Sil in LOTR’s text give LOTR wonderful depth, CoH is cast adrift with precious few links to the greater story in its text. If readers don’t know the background to this story, I believe they won’t find it easy to connect with either the characters or the book.

as in LotR, Tolkien uses his mountain ranges like walls, and his forests (I contend) have abrupt borders, contiguous with the territory of the forest dwellers. As in LotR, we hear nothing about great herd of animals roaming the land, and little about cultivation either. In other words, this is not realistic wilderness, but a highly territorial map with mountains, rivers, and forests marking unnaturally-sharp borders between the territories.

Although Christopher Tolkien attempts to tie Children of Hurin to LotR by noting two references to Turin in LotR, we really don't hear much about Turin in LotR beyond a couple of references to his name. This contrasts with a great deal we hear about Beren and Earendil. We don't hear much about Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin either, as I recall, nor do we hear much about the history of the elves in the First Age. I think LotR focuses on Beren and Earendil because those are hopeful tales, whereas the stories of Turin and Tuor and most of the elves in the First Age are mostly about downfall and loss.

And in fact Turin's story doesn't relate much to the story of the Silmarils. Turin's road is a dead end. He leaves no progeny, and accomplishes little beyond the death of Glaurung. He does bring about the downfall of Nargothrond. Hurin then helps bring about the downfall of Doriath and Gondolin, but we don't hear about that in this book. That may be another reason why Turin's story can stand alone better than other First Age tales -- it really is a self-contained story, almost incidental to the history of the First Age.

Although Children of Hurin is presented without obvious gaps, except at the very end, I think there are a number of places in which it is not a fully-fleshed-out story, but rather a summary of what happens between episodes in the story. Still, at least Christopher Tolkein does not have to interrupt with notes or make up something to tie the episodes together. I have not read The Fall of Gondolin, but from what I understand it was never updated to fit in with later versions of The Silmarillion. As drogo said, the army of Balrogs in the Fall of Gondolin was later winnowed down dramatically. And even more so than Turin's tale, the Fall of Gondolin is just the first half of a story that ends not with Tuor but with Earendil, and that story was never fleshed out. We don't even really know what happened to Tuor in the end; he may have reached Valinor before his son, by some accounts.

Of course no one really needs a legendarium, much less one invented out of whole cloth. But Tolkien sorely felt the lack in England. I think he resented the imported Norman stories of King Arthur, in which the Saxons were the enemy. And he was not much for Celtic tales, apparently. The whole field of philology was invented as part of Romantic Nationalism, it seems, after the Napoleonic Wars made French tales, and the French language, less popular in Germany and England. Tolkien also had a personal connection with the Saxons, or so he believed, through his mother's family, which claimed descent from the Saxons.

Furthermore J.R.R. Tolkien had another reason for inventing a legendarium. J.R.R. Tolkien wanted a context for his invented languages. I think he realized that language without stories is dead. That may be why Tolkien's invented languages, and the Star Trek language of Klingon, are more popular than Esperanto.

Thanks for the great post. I'm sorry you had trouble posting. It looks like a great schedule.