Hacettepe University Graduate School of Social Sciences 

Department of Translation and Interpretation 

 

 

 

 

 

A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE TWO TURKISH 

TRANSLATIONS OF J.R.R. TOLKIEN’S THE SILMARILLION 

 

 

 

Emre TİRYAKİ 

 

 

 

 

Master’s Thesis 

 

 

 

Ankara, 2025 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE TWO TURKISH TRANSLATIONS OF J.R.R. 

TOLKIEN’S THE SILMARILLION 

 

 

 

 

 

Emre TİRYAKİ 

 

 

 

 

 

Hacettepe University Graduate School of Social Sciences 

Department of Translation and Interpretation 

 

 

 

 

Master’s Thesis 

 

 

 

Ankara, 2025 

 

 



 

 

ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL 

The jury finds that Emre TİRYAKİ has on the date of 17.09.2025 successfully passed 

the defense examination and approves his Master’s Thesis titled “A Descriptive 

Analysis of the Two Turkish Translations of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Silmarillion” 

 

 

Assoc. Prof. Gökçen HASTÜRKOĞLU (Jury President) 

 

 

Asst. Prof. Elif ERSÖZLÜ (Main Adviser) 

 

 

Assoc. Prof. Hilal ERKAZANCI DURMUŞ 

 

 

 

 

I agree that the signatures above belong to the faculty members listed. 

 

 

Prof. Dr. Uğur ÖMÜRGÖNÜLŞEN 

Graduate School Director 

 

 

 

 



 

 

YAYIMLAMA VE FİKRİ MÜLKİYET HAKLARI BEYANI 

 

Enstitü tarafından onaylanan lisansüstü tezimin/raporumun tamamını veya herhangi bir 

kısmını, basılı (kağıt) ve elektronik formatta arşivleme ve aşağıda verilen koşullarla kullanıma 

açma iznini Hacettepe Üniversitesine verdiğimi bildiririm. Bu izinle Üniversiteye verilen 

kullanım hakları dışındaki tüm fikri mülkiyet haklarım bende kalacak, tezimin tamamının ya da 

bir bölümünün gelecekteki çalışmalarda (makale, kitap, lisans ve patent vb.) kullanım hakları 

bana ait olacaktır. 

Tezin kendi orijinal çalışmam olduğunu, başkalarının haklarını ihlal etmediğimi ve tezimin tek 

yetkili sahibi olduğumu beyan ve taahhüt ederim. Tezimde yer alan telif hakkı bulunan ve 

sahiplerinden yazılı izin alınarak kullanılması zorunlu metinlerin yazılı izin alınarak 

kullandığımı ve istenildiğinde suretlerini Üniversiteye teslim etmeyi taahhüt ederim. 

Yükseköğretim Kurulu tarafından yayınlanan “Lisansüstü Tezlerin Elektronik Ortamda 

Toplanması, Düzenlenmesi ve Erişime Açılmasına İlişkin Yönerge” kapsamında tezim 

aşağıda belirtilen koşullar haricince YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi / H.Ü. Kütüphaneleri Açık Erişim 

Sisteminde erişime açılır. 

o Enstitü / Fakülte yönetim kurulu kararı ile tezimin erişime açılması mezuniyet 

tarihimden itibaren 2 yıl ertelenmiştir. (1) 

o Enstitü / Fakülte yönetim kurulunun gerekçeli kararı ile tezimin erişime 

açılması mezuniyet tarihimden itibaren ... ay ertelenmiştir. (2) 

o Tezimle ilgili gizlilik kararı verilmiştir. (3) 

    ……/………/……  

                                                                                                        Emre TİRYAKİ 

“Lisansüstü Tezlerin Elektronik Ortamda Toplanması, Düzenlenmesi ve Erişime Açılmasına İlişkin Yönerge”  

(1) Madde 6. 1. Lisansüstü tezle ilgili patent başvurusu yapılması veya patent alma sürecinin devam etmesi 

durumunda, tez danışmanının önerisi ve enstitü anabilim dalının uygun görüşü üzerine enstitü veya 

fakülte yönetim kurulu iki yıl süre ile tezin erişime açılmasının ertelenmesine karar verebilir.   

 

(2) Madde 6. 2. Yeni teknik, materyal ve metotların kullanıldığı, henüz makaleye dönüşmemiş veya patent gibi 

yöntemlerle korunmamış ve internetten paylaşılması durumunda 3. şahıslara veya kurumlara haksız 

kazanç imkanı oluşturabilecek bilgi ve bulguları içeren tezler hakkında tez danışmanının önerisi ve enstitü 

anabilim dalının uygun görüşü üzerine enstitü veya fakülte yönetim kurulunun gerekçeli kararı ile altı 

ayı aşmamak üzere tezin erişime açılması engellenebilir. 

 

(3) Madde 7. 1. Ulusal çıkarları veya güvenliği ilgilendiren, emniyet, istihbarat, savunma ve güvenlik, sağlık vb. 

konulara ilişkin lisansüstü tezlerle ilgili gizlilik kararı, tezin yapıldığı kurum tarafından verilir *. Kurum ve 

kuruluşlarla yapılan işbirliği protokolü çerçevesinde hazırlanan lisansüstü tezlere ilişkin gizlilik kararı ise, 

ilgili kurum ve kuruluşun önerisi ile enstitü veya fakültenin uygun görüşü üzerine üniversite yönetim 

kurulu tarafından verilir. Gizlilik kararı verilen tezler Yükseköğretim Kuruluna bildirilir.  

Madde 7.2. Gizlilik kararı verilen tezler gizlilik süresince enstitü veya fakülte tarafından gizlilik kuralları 

çerçevesinde muhafaza edilir, gizlilik kararının kaldırılması halinde Tez Otomasyon Sistemine yüklenir  

 

* Tez danışmanının önerisi ve enstitü anabilim dalının uygun görüşü üzerine enstitü veya fakülte 

yönetim kurulu tarafından karar verilir. 

 



 

 

ETİK BEYAN 

Bu çalışmadaki bütün bilgi ve belgeleri akademik kurallar çerçevesinde elde ettiğimi, 

görsel, işitsel ve yazılı tüm bilgi ve sonuçları bilimsel ahlak kurallarına uygun olarak 

sunduğumu, kullandığım verilerde herhangi bir tahrifat yapmadığımı, yararlandığım 

kaynaklara bilimsel normlara uygun olarak atıfta bulunduğumu, tezimin kaynak 

gösterilen durumlar dışında özgün olduğunu, Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Elif ERSÖZLÜ 

danışmanlığında tarafımdan üretildiğini ve Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler 

Enstitüsü Tez Yazım Yönergesine göre yazıldığını beyan ederim. 

[İmza] 

Emre TİRYAKİ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



iv 
 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

 

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Asst. Prof. Elif 

ERSÖZLÜ, for her invaluable guidance, support, and encouragement 

throughout the preparation of this thesis. Her insightful feedback and 

dedicated mentorship have been essential in shaping this work. 

I am also sincerely thankful to my jury members, Assoc. Prof. Gökçen 

HASTÜRKOĞLU and Assoc. Prof. Hilal ERKAZANCI DURMUŞ, for their 

constructive comments, thoughtful suggestions, and academic contributions 

that greatly enriched this study. 

My special thanks go to my dear friend, Batuhan GENÇER, whose 

companionship, encouragement, and kindness have always motivated me 

along this journey. I eagerly await his reaction when he reads my work. 

Finally, and most importantly, I owe my deepest gratitude and love to my 

beloved wife, whose endless patience, understanding, and unwavering 

support made this achievement possible. This thesis is dedicated to her. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



v 
 

 

ABSTRACT 

 

TİRYAKİ, Emre. A Descriptive Analysis of the Two Turkish Translations of 

 J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Silmarillion, Master’s Thesis, Ankara, 2025. 

 

Fantasy literature has long fascinated readers with immersive worlds and imaginative themes. 

Among its most influential figures is J.R.R. Tolkien, whose works became foundational to the 

genre. The Silmarillion stands as a central text in his legendarium, functioning as the creation 

myth of Middle-earth. Unlike traditional novels, it offers a mythological and historical account 

of a fictional universe, making it challenging for translators. This thesis examines how two 

Turkish translations of The Silmarillion, by Erincin and Aytutucu (1999) and Akkıyal (2007), 

approach the translation of proper names and culture-specific items. These elements shape 

the fictional world and narrative tone of fantasy literature. Translating such texts requires more 

than linguistic equivalence; it demands decisions about preserving or adapting fictional 

culture. The study applies Javier Franco Aixelá’s typology of strategies for culture-specific 

items and Lawrence Venuti’s concepts of domestication, foreignization, and translator’s 

visibility. Aixelá’s model categorizes culturally embedded elements, while Venuti’s approach 

evaluates broader ideological effects. The analysis uses a comparative and descriptive 

method. Examples from both translations are examined against the English text and evaluated 

through the two frameworks. This combination helps reveal how translators balance 

readability and preservation of cultural qualities. The aim is not to declare one translation 

superior but to emphasize how strategies affect reception in the target language. This 

research contributes to translation studies by showing the significance of choices in works 

with complex cultural systems such as fantasy literature. 

 

Key Words  

Fantasy literature, translation of proper names and culture-specific items, Tolkien, The 

Silmarillion 

 

 

 

 



vi 
 

 

ÖZET 

 

TİRYAKİ, Emre. J.R.R. Tolkien’in The Silmarillion Adlı Eserinin İki Türkçe 

 Çevirisinin Betimsel Analizi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara, 2025. 

 

Fantastik edebiyat, sürükleyici dünyalar ve hayal gücü gerektiren temalarla okuyucuları uzun 

süredir etkilemektedir. Fantastik edebiyatın en önemli isimlerinden biri, eserleri türün temelini 

oluşturan J.R.R. Tolkien’dir. Silmarillion, Orta Dünya'nın yaratılış miti işlevi görerek, Tolkien’in 

efsanelerinde merkezi bir metin olarak yer alır. Geleneksel romanların aksine mitolojik ve 

tarihsel bir anlatı sunar ve bu da eseri çevirmenler için zor bir hale getirir. Bu tez, Erincin ve 

Aytutucu (1999) ve Akkıyal (2007) tarafından yapılan Silmarillion'un iki Türkçe çevirisinin, özel 

isimlerin ve kültüre özgü öğelerin çevirisine nasıl yaklaştığını incelemektedir. Bu ögeler, 

fantastik edebiyatın kurgusal dünyasını ve anlatı tonunu şekillendirmede önemli rol oynar. Bu 

tür metinlerin çevirisi dilsel eşdeğerliğin yanı sıra kurgusal kültürü koruma veya uyarlamaya 

yönelik kararlar gerektirir. Bu çalışmada, Javier Franco Aixelá’ya ait kültüre özgü ögeler için 

strateji tipolojisi ile Lawrence Venuti’nin yerlileştirme, yabancılaştırma ve çevirmenin 

görünürlüğü kavramları kullanılmaktadır. Aixelá modeli ayrıntılı kategorizasyon sunarken, 

Venuti yaklaşımı stratejilerin ideolojik etkilerini değerlendirir. Tez, karşılaştırmalı ve betimleyici 

bir yöntem izlemektedir. Her iki çeviriden seçilen örnekler İngilizce metinle karşılaştırılmış ve 

bu iki kuramsal çerçeveye göre incelenmiştir. Bu yöntem, metnin okunabilirliği ile kültürel 

özelliklerin korunması arasındaki dengeyi daha iyi anlamaya yardımcı olur. Çalışmada amaç 

hangi çevirinin diğerinden üstün olduğunu belirlemek değil, kullanılan stratejilerin hedef dilde 

algıyı nasıl etkilediğini vurgulamaktır. Bu araştırma, fantastik edebiyat gibi karmaşık kültürel 

sistemlere sahip eserlerde tercihlerin önemini göstererek çeviri çalışmalarına katkıda 

bulunmaktadır. 

 

Anahtar Sözcükler  

Fantastik edebiyat, özel adların ve kültüre özgü ögelerin çevirisi, Tolkien, The Silmarillion 

 

 

 

 

 



vii 
 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL .............................................................................. İ 

YAYIMLAMA VE FİKRİ MÜLKİYET HAKLARI BEYANI .......................................... İİ 

ETİK BEYAN ............................................................................................................. İİİ 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................ İV 

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... V 

ÖZET ........................................................................................................................ Vİ 

ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... İX 

TABLES .................................................................................................................... X 

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................... 6 

CHAPTER 2: FANTASY LITERATURE .................................................................. 14 

2.1. MYTH AND FAIRY TALE: FANTASY’S ARCHAIC FOUNDATIONS .......... 14 

2.2. THE FANTASTIC AND THE HESITATION OF BELIEF............................... 15 

2.3. NINETEENTH-CENTURY REVIVAL: MACDONALD AND MORRIS ........... 15 

2.4. TOLKIEN AND THE RISE OF HIGH FANTASY .......................................... 16 

2.5. SUBGENRES OF FANTASY LITERATURE ................................................ 17 

2.6. TURKISH FANTASY LITERATURE ............................................................. 19 

CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ...................................................... 21 

3.1. VISIBILITY / INVISIBILITY OF THE TRANSLATOR .................................... 25 

3.2. DOMESTICATION AND FOREIGNIZATION ................................................ 27 

3.3. CULTURE-SPECIFIC ITEMS IN TRANSLATION ........................................ 29 

CHAPTER 4: CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE SILMARILLION AND ITS 

TURKISH TRANSLATIONS .................................................................................... 33 

4.1. THE AUTHOR ............................................................................................... 33 

4.1.1. Other Works of the Author ...................................................................... 35 

4.2. SUMMARY OF THE SILMARILLION ........................................................... 39 



viii 
 

 

4.3. THE POSITION OF TRANSLATED FANTASY LITERATURE AND 

TOLKIEN IN TÜRKİYE BETWEEN 1999 – 2008 ................................................ 47 

4.4. TRANSLATORS AND PUBLISHERS OF THE SILMARILLION .................. 49 

CHAPTER 5: CASE STUDY .................................................................................... 55 

5.1. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 55 

5.2. PROPER NOUNS ......................................................................................... 60 

5.3. CULTURE-SPECIFIC ITEMS ........................................................................ 75 

5.3.1. Organizations, Customs, and Ideas ....................................................... 76 

5.3.2. Religious Culture .................................................................................... 80 

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION..................................................................................... 93 

CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 101 

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................... 106 

APPENDIX 1 ORIGINALITY REPORT..................................................................112 

APPENDIX 2 ETHICS COMMISSION FORM........................................................114 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



ix 
 

 

ABBREVIATIONS 

 

CSI: Culture-Specific Item  

 

ST: Source Text (Tolkien, J. R. R. (1977). The Silmarillion (C. Tolkien, Ed.). 

George Allen & Unwin.) 

 

TT1: Target Text 1 (Tolkien, J. R. R. (1999). Silmarillion (S. Erincin & H. 

Aytutucu, Trans.). 6:45 Yayın.) 

 

TT2: Target Text 2 (Tolkien, J. R. R. (2007). Silmarillion (B. Akkıyal, Trans.). 

İthaki Yayınları.) 

 

KÖÖ: Kültüre Özgü Ögeler 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



x 
 

 

TABLES 

 

Table 1: Translations of proper nouns in both works - Venuti's approach ............... 93 

 

 

Table 2: Translations of proper nouns in both works - Aixelá's strategies ............... 95 

 

 

Table 3: Translations of CSIs in both works - Venuti's approach ............................ 96 

 

 

Table 4: Translations of CSIs in both works - Aixelá's strategies ............................ 98 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



1 
 

 

INTRODUCTION 

 

“Words travel worlds. Translators do the driving.” 

– Anna Rusconi 

Translation has always been an important part of human communication. In 

today's connected world, it does more than just connect different languages. 

It also helps share stories, values, and ways of thinking across time and 

cultures. Translation works as both a mirror and a bridge. It reflects the details 

of one language and makes them understandable in another. However, 

translation is not a neutral process. It is a space where meaning, culture, and 

beliefs come together. This is especially true in literary translation, where 

language is not only used to communicate but also to express creativity, 

imagination, and identity. 

This complexity is especially clear in the translation of fantasy literature, a 

genre that depends on creating detailed worlds, made-up languages, and 

symbols that belong to specific cultures. J.R.R. Tolkien, a philologist and 

mythopoet, crafted a legendarium that not only redefined the fantasy genre but 

also foregrounded the very issues that challenge literary translators. How does 

one render a fictional culture, complete with its own mythology, into another 

language without losing its narrative and symbolic coherence? Tolkien’s The 

Silmarillion, a compendium of mythic tales telling the creation and early history 

of Middle-earth, stands as a particularly demanding text for translators. It is full 

of proper names, made-up languages, and culture-specific elements, and it 

requires both deep understanding and creative skill. 

By situating the case study within established translation theory, this research 

contributes to discussions on cultural transfer and the role of the translator in 

shaping literary meaning. In doing so, it also explores what it means to 

translate a work of fantasy, where the translator must not only navigate 

languages, but also recreate an imaginative world. 



2 
 

 

This introduction part of the thesis outlines the foundational structure of the 

study. It introduces the subject matter, presents the research questions, and 

provides an overview of the structure of the thesis. Additionally, it includes 

dedicated sections to describe the aim, scope, significance, and limitations of 

the study. 

Aim of the Study 

The aim of this study is to examine how proper names and culture-specific 

items (CSIs) are translated in two Turkish versions of J. R. R. Tolkien’s The 

Silmarillion. The study focuses on the translations by Erincin and Aytutucu 

(1999) and Akkıyal (2007), and compares selected examples from each with 

the original English text. In doing so, it aims to identify the translation strategies 

used for proper names and CSIs, and to analyse these strategies using Javier 

Franco Aixelá’s typology and Lawrence Venuti’s concepts of domestication, 

foreignization, and translator visibility. 

The study also aims to evaluate how these strategies affect the representation 

of Tolkien’s fictional world in the target language and to discuss the role of 

translation choices in preserving or adapting the cultural and mythological 

elements of fantasy literature. By focusing on the treatment of CSIs and proper 

names in a fantasy context, the study aims to contribute to the broader field of 

literary translation and genre-specific translation research. 

Scope of the Study 

This study focuses specifically on the Turkish translations of The Silmarillion. 

The comparative analysis is limited to selected parts that are rich in proper 

nouns and culture-specific items (CSIs), which are central to Tolkien’s 

narrative technique and world-building. The study does not attempt a full 

translation comparison but focuses on key examples that highlight differences 

in strategy and effect. 

Significance of the Study 

This study is important because it looks at two different Turkish translations of 

The Silmarillion, a book that has not been studied much in Turkish translation 



3 
 

 

research. While many academic works focus on Tolkien’s other books like The 

Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit, there are very few detailed studies about how 

The Silmarillion was translated into Turkish. Also, most of the existing studies 

focus on only one translation, not two. This thesis compares two different 

Turkish versions and examines how proper names and culture-specific items 

were translated. By using both Aixelá’s and Venuti’s translation theories 

together, this study shows how translation choices affect the style and cultural 

feel of the story. In this way, the thesis fills a gap in the field and offers a new 

approach for studying the translation of complex fantasy texts. 

Limitations 

This research does not make use of methods such as reader reception studies 

or interviews with the translators. Furthermore, it does not account for editorial 

interventions or publishing constraints that may have influenced the final 

translation decisions. The analysis is restricted to textual examples and 

theoretical interpretation. 

It is also worth noting that this study uses both of the Turkish translations of 

The Silmarillion. The first one was done by Serap Erincin and Hakan Aytutucu 

in 1999, and the second one by Berna Akkıyal in 2007. The analysis compares 

these two versions with the original English text. Since the study focuses only 

on these two translations, the results should be understood in that specific 

context. 

Additionally, the study does not analyse detailed stylistic aspects such as 

character voice, tone, or register. The focus is strictly on the strategies used 

for the translation of proper names and CSIs, as categorized by the theoretical 

models applied. 

Research questions 

1. What translation strategies are used for proper names and culture-

specific items in the two Turkish translations of The Silmarillion? 

2. How do these strategies align with the characteristics and demands of 

the fantasy genre? 



4 
 

 

3. Which of these two translators is more visible according to Venuti’s 

approach? 

Following the introduction part, a detailed information on Fantasy Literature 

will be given in Chapter II. In this section, alongside the origins, prominent 

examples, aims, and major authors of fantasy literature, the place of J.R.R. 

Tolkien's The Silmarillion—which is the subject of this thesis—within fantasy 

literature will also be examined. 

In the third chapter, the theoretical background of this study will be examined 

in detail. Firstly, a brief history of translation will be given. Then, Lawrence 

Venuti's theory of "Visibility of the Translator" will be examined in detail. This 

discussion will address the circumstances under which a translator becomes 

invisible. After that, the concepts of "domestication" and "foreignization" will be 

discussed in accordance with Venuti’s visibility approach. Finally, the definition 

and concept of Culture-Specific Elements (CSIs) in a translation will be 

discussed. The place and role of CSIs in translation will also be examined in 

this section.  

The fourth chapter will start giving detailed background information on the 

author of the work, J.R.R Tolkien. Additional information about the author's 

influence on fantasy literature and some of his other works will also be 

provided in this section. Afterwards, a summary of The Silmarillion will be 

given, and the language and themes used in the book will be discussed. 

Finally, brief information will be given about the two different translations that 

will be used in the study. 

In the fifth chapter, the strategies to be used in the comparative analyses will 

be explained. This section will also provide information about the format of 

these comparisons and the approach to be followed. 

At the end of the thesis, it is expected that whether the translators are visible 

or not will be concluded through the examples examined and the analysis of 

the methods used will shed light on how successful the aforementioned 

translations are. As a result of the examination of the word choices used by 

the translators and the paratextual elements analysed in the book, it will be 



5 
 

 

seen how much of the atmosphere the author wants to convey could be 

reflected in the translation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



6 
 

 

CHAPTER 1 

LITERATURE REVIEW 

 

The translation of proper nouns and culture-specific items (CSIs) in literary 

texts, particularly in fantasy literature, brings unique challenges for translators. 

These elements often serve as critical markers of fictional world-building and 

cultural identity. This review surveys significant contributions to this field, with 

particular attention to key studies that analyse Tolkien’s works, and the 

strategies used in their translations. Given the current thesis’s focus on proper 

nouns and CSIs in the Turkish translations of The Silmarillion, these works 

offer important theoretical and methodological frameworks. 

Firstly, Serkan Göktaş presents a descriptive translation study of the Turkish 

translation of The Lord of the Rings using frameworks such as Toury’s Target-

Oriented Approach and Even-Zohar’s Polysystem Theory. In his work “A 

Descriptive Study on the Turkish Translation of The Lord of the Rings”, Göktaş 

focuses on the influence of the target culture’s norms and systemic 

expectations in shaping translation decisions (Göktaş, 2010, pp. 13–25). 

A key concern in Göktaş’s study is the domestication strategy used in the 

Turkish version. For example, “The Shire” is translated as Aygırdüzü, reflecting 

an attempt to localize the semantic and cultural connotations of the original 

(Göktaş, 2010, p. 57). Göktaş critiques this strategy for sometimes 

compromising the source text’s foreignizing aesthetic and linguistic creativity. 

Furthermore, Göktaş examines how Tolkien’s pseudotranslation structure, 

which presents the story as a translation from a fictional Elvish manuscript, 

demands an unusually layered translation approach. This metatextual element 

complicates the translator’s task, especially when dealing with names 

embedded in fictional etymologies (Göktaş, 2010, pp. 44–50). As this thesis 

investigates proper nouns and CSIs, Göktaş’s analysis provides valuable 

insight into how the Turkish translators navigated these complexities. 



7 
 

 

In addition, Marinda Kolev’s Master’s thesis investigates how culture-specific 

items (CSIs) are translated in The Lord of the Rings, using Spanish and 

Bulgarian as the target languages. The study uses Javier Franco Aixelá’s 

taxonomy for CSIs and Lawrence Venuti’s concepts of domestication and 

foreignization. The research includes a detailed comparison of how these 

strategies are applied in both translations, offering a multilingual lens through 

which to view the treatment of fantasy-specific vocabulary and naming 

systems (Kolev, 2017, pp. 5–7). 

The analysis reveals that Bulgarian translators tend to favour foreignization, 

often preserving original names and structures, while Spanish translators lean 

more toward domestication by adapting names and terms for cultural 

familiarity. The thesis categorizes over 300 CSI examples, examining them in 

terms of frequency, strategy choice, and their impact on reader perception 

(Kolev, 2017, pp. 61–65). 

Kolev also discusses the narrative role of CSIs in Tolkien’s world-building and 

how different strategies either preserve or adapt this mythological structure for 

target readers (Kolev, 2017, p. 66). The work is especially useful for this thesis 

due to its analysis combining both quantitative data and in-depth qualitative 

commentary. The consistent application of Aixelá’s model provides a clear 

methodology that aligns with the current study’s approach to analysing the 

Turkish versions of The Silmarillion. However, while the mentioned thesis 

shares a similar theoretical background, it focuses on The Lord of the Rings 

and compares one translation per language. In contrast, this study looks at 

The Silmarillion and compares two different Turkish translations of the same 

text. This helps show how different translators make different choices even 

within the same language. 

Although the studies mentioned mostly focus on Tolkien and his works, there 

are also studies on the translation of culture-specific items in other types of 

literature. These studies, while not directly related to fantasy, still help this 

thesis by showing how different translation strategies are used to deal with 

cultural elements. They also use the same theoretical tools that this thesis 

applies, such as the frameworks of Aixelá and Venuti. One example is Merve 



8 
 

 

Kuleli’s article titled “Translation Strategies for Culture-Specific Items”, which 

gives a detailed analysis of CSIs in Orhan Kemal’s Baba Evi and its English 

translation My Father’s House. Kuleli uses the frameworks of Aixelá and 

Venuti to classify the CSIs and examine how they were translated using 

strategies like foreignization and domestication (Kuleli 2020, pp. 617–653). 

She finds 194 CSIs in total, including 31 proper nouns. Most were translated 

using foreignization, such as literal translation and orthographic adaptation. 

Domestication was less common. For example, local idioms were often kept 

in their original form, helping to protect the cultural feel of the text (Kuleli 2020, 

p. 635). This study shows how CSIs can be handled in different genres, which 

supports the methods used in this thesis. 

In addition, Ceren Karakuş’s study, “Turkish Translation of Neologisms in The 

Lord of the Rings”, is a seminal contribution to the analysis of proper noun 

translation in Tolkien’s corpus. Focusing on The Lord of the Rings, Karakuş 

investigates the strategies used by Çiğdem Erkal Yeşilbademli in the Turkish 

translation of neologisms, including proper nouns, toponyms, and nicknames. 

Utilizing corpus linguistics tools, Karakuş analyses the alignment of the 

translator’s choices with Tolkien’s own translation guidelines outlined in his 

Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings (2021). Karakuş identifies key 

strategies such as functional equivalence, descriptive translation, borrowing, 

and transcription. (Karakuş, 2021, pp. 5–7). She also emphasizes the 

importance of adhering to Tolkien’s intention for name translations, arguing 

that meaningful names should convey their essence in the target language 

unless they serve a purely phonetic function (Karakuş, 2021, pp. 10–12). 

Given that The Silmarillion also contains numerous neologistic and 

mythologically dense names, this work provides essential guidance for 

evaluating the Turkish renditions in this thesis. 

A recent and very significant book in Tolkien translation studies is Translating 

and Illustrating Tolkien, edited by Will Sherwood (2023). This collection brings 

together papers from the “2021 Tolkien Society Autumn Seminar” and looks 

at how Tolkien’s work has been translated into different languages and shown 

through images. Each essay deals with problems that come up when trying to 

translate Tolkien’s style, tone, invented words, and storytelling into new 



9 
 

 

cultural settings. The book is a helpful source for comparing how The 

Silmarillion has been translated into Turkish and how other languages have 

faced similar challenges. 

The first essay by Eric Reinders explores how Tolkien’s language use creates 

challenges in translation across different languages when it comes to words 

or terms that could have two different meanings in the target language. The 

study shows that certain meanings in the original text can be lost or weakened 

in the target language through translation. It concludes that language-specific 

limits often affect how readers understand key moments in Tolkien’s works 

(Smith 2023, pp. 15–16). This general problem is also important when looking 

at the Turkish translations discussed in this thesis. 

One of the most detailed essays in the book is by Helena Real, who studies 

the 1984 Spanish translation of The Silmarillion by Rubén Masera and Luis 

Domènech. She points out four major problems. First, the translators used the 

masculine article los to talk about the Silmarils, even though the word “jewel” 

in Spanish is feminine (joya), so it should be las (p. 17). Second, she says that 

the translators did not keep the old-fashioned language of the original. For 

example, they translated “ere” as “antes,” which is too modern, and missed 

the chance to use an older word like “denante” (p. 19). Third, she shows that 

the translators made the speech of important characters too casual. A figure 

like Ilúvatar, who is like a god, should speak in a more formal and respectful 

way, but the Spanish version uses plain language (p. 21). Finally, Real is very 

critical of the fact that the translators added things that are not in the original 

book, like starting the creation story with the phrase “En el principio,” which 

sounds biblical. She argues that this changes Tolkien’s ideas and is not fair to 

the text (p. 22). She ends by saying that this version is not just a weak 

translation, but something closer to a betrayal of the original (p. 23). 

Another essay by Martha Celis Menzoda and Aline Esperanza Maza Vázques 

looks at the Spanish version of Roverandom, one of Tolkien’s lighter stories. 

They say that the fun and creative feeling of the original gets lost in the Spanish 

translation. Wordplay, plant names, and musical terms are changed into 

simpler or incorrect words. This makes the story feel dull and takes away the 



10 
 

 

special mood that Tolkien created. The characters also feel less alive, and the 

magical setting becomes less believable (Smith, 2023, pp. 23–24). This shows 

how important it is for translators to protect the original style and tone, 

especially in works like The Silmarillion that rely on a strong fictional 

atmosphere. 

Sonali Arvind Chunodkar writes about the Marathi translation of The Lord of 

the Rings. She focuses on how the translator did not keep the deeper spiritual 

or moral ideas from the English version. This creates confusing meanings, 

especially when used in scenes about evil, like Mordor or Sauron. Chunodkar 

says this shows that the translator did not think enough about the deeper 

meanings or religious effects of their word choices (Smith, 2023, pp. 24–25). 

This example highlights how culturally sensitive terms must be handled 

carefully in translation. 

Some essays in the book focus on paratexts, which are the elements that 

surround the main text and guide how readers understand it, such as covers, 

illustrations, and other visual features (Genette 1997, p. 2). In one of the 

essays, Joel Merriner studies how Tolkien’s books were illustrated in countries 

like Hungary and Bulgaria during the Soviet period. He explains that these 

illustrations often copied Western styles but were also changed to reflect local 

artistic traditions and beliefs. Another essay by Marie Bretagnolle looks at the 

French context. She explains that early French editions had unusual 

translation choices and their own unique drawing styles, but these were later 

replaced by more global visuals such as the works of Ted Nasmith and Alan 

Lee. Both essays, as presented in Smith (2023, pp. 25–27), show that 

illustrations and other visual features can shape how a translated work is 

received, and they are an important part of how meaning is created across 

cultures. 

The translation of proper nouns is a common topic in many master's and 

doctoral theses, especially in studies focused on fantasy literature. As an 

example, Mihaela Šmehil’s thesis “Proper Nouns in the Croatian Translation 

of The Hobbit” explores the treatment of proper nouns in the Croatian 

translation of The Hobbit by Marko Maras. Using Hein’s strategy typology, 



11 
 

 

Šmehil categorizes translation approaches as preservation, substitution, and 

adaptation (Šmehil, 2023, pp. 17–26). 

One illustrative case is the translation of “Baggins” as Torbar, a Croatian term 

meaning “bag carrier,” which captures both the semantic and narrative function 

of the original. Similarly, “Mirkwood” is translated as Mrka šuma, a literal 

translation that retains the dark, foreboding connotation (Šmehil, 2023, p. 22). 

Šmehil argues that these choices maintain the semantic depth and contribute 

to the immersive quality of the narrative. 

This study is particularly relevant as it provides a comparative perspective from 

a different linguistic context. It reinforces the idea that preserving the cultural 

and linguistic details of proper nouns is critical in maintaining the narrative 

integrity of fantasy texts. For this thesis, which also compares multiple Turkish 

translations, Šmehil’s methodological rigor offers a comparative benchmark. 

Another valuable study on The Silmarillion translation is by Sukmak and 

Tipayasuparat (2023), who examine the Thai version translated by Thida 

Thanyaprasertkul. Their analysis focuses on how the translation was edited 

and what techniques were used. They base their study on a framework 

developed by Saibua (2010), which separates translation strategies into two 

types: literal translation, where the structure and wording are kept close to the 

original, and free translation, where the meaning is kept but the language is 

changed to sound more natural in the target language (p. 84). 

At the word level, Sukmak and Tipayasuparat (2023) observed that the 

translators often used full phrases instead of short one-word translations, 

especially for poetic or emotional terms like “glorious” and “suffered” (p. 90). 

Some phrases were left out when they felt unnecessary or repetitive in Thai, 

such as “to be called Lord” or “among the Elves” (p. 91). At the sentence level, 

the most common method was changing word order to match Thai grammar, 

especially when it came to verbs and adverbs (p. 91). Words were also added 

or removed to make the sentence more natural or complete for Thai readers 

(pp. 92–93). The study found that free translation was used far more often than 

literal translation. The translator made many changes in sentence structure 

and word choice to preserve the meaning and style of Tolkien’s writing while 



12 
 

 

making the text flow well in Thai (pp. 94–95). This study is highly relevant to 

this thesis, which focuses on the translation of CSIs and proper nouns in the 

Turkish versions of The Silmarillion. The structural differences between 

English and Turkish require flexible strategies when translating names, 

invented terms, and cultural expressions. The article shows how methods like 

rephrasing, word reordering, and adding or removing elements can support 

these kinds of translation decisions. These same methods can also be applied 

to CSIs and proper nouns, which often do not have direct matches in the target 

language. The examples from the Thai translation offer helpful insights into 

how translators manage such challenges through adaptation rather than strict 

word-for-word transfer. 

All in all, many academic studies have been written on the translation of 

Tolkien’s works, especially on The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, 

Roverandom, and The Silmarillion. Most of these focus on translations into 

European and Asian languages such as Spanish, French, Croatian, Chinese, 

Marathi, and Thai. These works have explored different aspects of Tolkien 

translation like poetic tone, religious references, gender-related meaning 

shifts, and even visual representations in illustrations. Several studies give 

detailed examples of how Tolkien’s language is adapted into new cultures and 

how translators deal with stylistic and structural problems.  

There is currently no detailed study that looks at how culture-specific items 

and proper nouns have been translated in Turkish editions of The Silmarillion. 

This is a noticeable gap in the literature, because both CSIs and proper nouns 

carry important cultural, mythological, and symbolic meaning in Tolkien’s work. 

Items such as place names, personal names, invented creatures, and magical 

objects are not just part of the story, but also part of the deeper world Tolkien 

created. If these elements are translated without care or consistency, the style, 

tone, and meaning of the original work may be lost or changed. Turkish, like 

many other languages, has a different sentence structure and cultural 

background than English. This makes it important to analyse how translators 

deal with these challenges, especially in a complex and poetic text like The 

Silmarillion. 



13 
 

 

This thesis addresses that need by focusing on the Turkish translations of The 

Silmarillion and examining how culture-specific items and proper nouns have 

been handled. By doing so, it provides a new perspective and adds to the 

broader field of Tolkien translation studies. It also helps readers and 

researchers understand how one of Tolkien’s most complex works has been 

presented in Turkish, and what choices were made during the translation 

process. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



14 
 

 

CHAPTER 2 

FANTASY LITERATURE 

 

Fantasy literature is one of the oldest yet most dynamically evolving genres in 

human storytelling. Emerging from ancient myths and fairy tales, and 

continuing into postmodern metafiction and digital culture, fantasy has long 

served as a mirror to human imagination, desire, and ideology. Though often 

dismissed in the past as escapist or juvenile, fantasy literature has been the 

subject of serious scholarly attention in recent decades. It combines the 

marvellous with the philosophical, the traditional with the subversive, and the 

real with the impossible. This section looks at how fantasy literature has grown, 

starting from its mythological beginnings to its formal theories and later 

changes in modern times. 

2.1. MYTH AND FAIRY TALE: FANTASY’S ARCHAIC FOUNDATIONS 

Fantasy literature traces its roots back to the mythological and folkloric 

narratives of ancient civilizations. Myths served as sacred narratives 

explaining the origins of the world and human existence, while fairy tales 

transmitted social values and moral lessons. According to Maria Nikolajeva 

(2003), “Fairy tales have their roots in archaic society and archaic thought, 

thus immediately succeeding myths” (p. 138). These early tales featured 

supernatural creatures, enchanted objects, and miraculous transformations, 

many of which persist in modern fantasy. 

Although fantasy borrows heavily from fairy tales and myth, the genres are not 

synonymous. Nikolajeva stresses that “fantasy grows out of the fairy tale... but 

their origins are quite different” (2003, p. 138). While fairy tales are oral, 

anonymous, and structured through archetypes, fantasy literature is a 

conscious literary construction. It draws on intertextual references and invents 

its own internal logic. 

Fantasy also reshapes the narrative’s chronotope; the configuration of time 

and space. Nikolajeva says, “Fantasy has inherited many superficial attributes 



15 
 

 

of fairy tales: wizards, witches, genies, dragons, talking animals… but the 

writers’ imagination allows them to transform and modernize these elements” 

(2003, p. 140). Modern fantasy often moves beyond the timeless settings of 

fairy tales to construct elaborate, historically inflected secondary worlds. 

2.2. THE FANTASTIC AND THE HESITATION OF BELIEF 

One of the most influential theories of fantasy literature is that of Tzvetan 

Todorov, who distinguishes fantasy from related modes such as the uncanny 

and the marvellous. For Todorov, the fantastic is defined by a moment of 

hesitation between rational and supernatural explanations. He says, “The 

fantastic occupies the duration of this uncertainty: the hesitation experienced 

by a person who knows only the laws of nature, confronting an apparently 

supernatural event” (Todorov, 1973, p. 25). This hesitation distinguishes 

fantasy from allegory or mythology, where the marvellous is accepted without 

question. 

Todorov outlines three essential conditions for a work to qualify as fantastic:  

“First, the text must oblige the reader to consider the world of the characters 

as a world of living persons and to hesitate between a natural and supernatural 

explanation of the events... Second, this hesitation may also be experienced 

by a character... Third, the reader must adopt a certain attitude with regard to 

the text” (1973, p. 33).  

According to this concept, fantasy is a reading experience influenced by 

epistemological ambiguity rather than a collection of clichés. Although 

Todorov’s definition is limited to a narrow slice of fantasy (e.g., ghost stories, 

Gothic fiction), it laid the foundation for distinguishing fantasy’s structural 

functions from its thematic content. 

2.3. NINETEENTH-CENTURY REVIVAL: MACDONALD AND MORRIS 

The 19th century marked the reintroduction of fantasy into literary fiction. 

George MacDonald and William Morris are credited with writing the first 

modern fantasies, drawing inspiration from medieval romance and Romantic 

philosophy. Weronika Łaszkiewicz (2021) says, “MacDonald’s Phantastes 



16 
 

 

(1858) and Morris’s The Well at the World’s End (1896) helped shape the early 

conventions of fantasy literature, including a hero’s journey, imaginary 

landscapes, and archaic-sounding prose” (p. 5). 

MacDonald’s work fused Christian allegory with fantasy, envisioning the genre 

as a spiritual and moral journey. Łaszkiewicz notes that this early literary 

fantasy served as “an imaginative alternative to industrial modernity,” offering 

readers symbolic narratives that contrasted with the rationalism and 

materialism of the Victorian era (2021, p. 6). These works established 

essential themes and formal elements that would be refined in the 20th century 

by authors such as J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. 

2.4. TOLKIEN AND THE RISE OF HIGH FANTASY 

J.R.R. Tolkien is widely regarded as the father of modern high fantasy. With 

the publication of The Hobbit (1937) and The Lord of the Rings (1954–1955), 

Tolkien introduced a new kind of fantasy literature—one grounded in linguistic 

invention, moral cosmology, and immersive world-building. Tolkien’s concept 

of the “Secondary World” redefined fantasy’s artistic legitimacy. As Nikolajeva 

(2003) explains, “For Tolkien, genuine and skilful fantasy creates Secondary 

Belief... putting the reader in a temporary state of enchantment” (p. 153). 

Tolkien’s theory of sub-creation positioned the fantasy writer as a kind of 

mythmaker or divine imitator. Łaszkiewicz notes, “Writing fantasy was an act 

of spiritual imitation... a way of participating in the divine creative process” 

(2021, p. 8). His work not only established the narrative model of the quest, 

but also legitimized fantasy as a serious literary effort. 

Tolkien also redefined the notion of “escape.” Often used pejoratively, the term 

was reclaimed in his essay On Fairy-Stories, where he wrote that escaping 

into fantasy was a valid response to modern disenchantment. Fabrizi (2016) 

summarizes this view: “Tolkien attempted to divest from the term ‘escape’ the 

disparagement and contempt which it endured... and reinvest the word with a 

connotation of respectful appreciation” (p. 2). The epic scale and ethical clarity 

of Tolkien’s fantasy had an enormous influence on the development of the 

genre. 



17 
 

 

2.5. SUBGENRES OF FANTASY LITERATURE 

Fantasy literature is a broad and varied genre that includes multiple 

subgenres, each characterized by distinct settings, themes, and approaches 

to the imagination. First and foremost, previously mentioned high fantasy is 

recognized for its entirely invented worlds. These narratives often include 

complex histories, unique geographies, and structured systems of magic. The 

stories are usually centred on themes such as moral conflict, heroism, and 

spiritual endurance. It is sometimes “regarded as the only true fantasy”. High 

fantasy is closely tied to myth and medieval tradition, often involving epic 

journeys and grand stakes (Velíšková, 2013, p. 13). 

In contrast, low fantasy is the “logical concomitant of high fantasy” (Stableford, 

2009, p. 256). It introduces supernatural elements into the real world. Rather 

than creating an alternate universe, low fantasy presents magical occurrences 

within familiar environments. This genre typically highlights the tension 

between the mundane and the extraordinary. The fantasy elements disrupt 

normal life, often to emphasize irony, social commentary, or character 

development (Velíšková, 2013, p. 27). Since low fantasy takes place in the 

real world, translators need to be more careful with cultural details and daily 

life situations. 

A further variation is found in urban fantasy, which blends magical elements 

with modern city life. These stories are set in contemporary environments 

where supernatural beings exist alongside everyday society (Stableford, 2009, 

p. 413). Urban fantasy frequently addresses current social issues and blurs 

the line between the real and the imagined. It combines elements of fantasy 

with those of mystery, romance, or horror (Burcher et al., 2009, p. 227). 

Historical fantasy is another important subgenre. It reimagines real historical 

periods by incorporating fantastical elements such as magic, mythical 

creatures, or alternate timelines (Burcher et al., 2009, p. 228). The genre 

allows authors to explore history through a creative lens, often drawing on 

ancient myths and legends from various cultures. The use of historical settings 

serves both to immerse the reader and to reflect on cultural memory (p. 229). 



18 
 

 

For translators, keeping both historical accuracy and fantasy coherence in 

these texts can be difficult. 

Moreover, dark fantasy shifts the tone significantly by merging the magical with 

the disturbing. These stories often contain horror elements and explore the 

emotional and psychological consequences of interacting with the 

supernatural (Stableford, 2009, p. 97). Rather than celebrating wonder, dark 

fantasy emphasizes fear, danger, and moral ambiguity. It is particularly 

concerned with inner turmoil and the destructive potential of power. 

Another refined form of the genre is literary fantasy. This subgenre 

emphasizes “graceful style, symbolic language, complex characters, ethereal 

settings, alliterative in-jokes, meta-references, or non-linear timelines” 

(Burcher et al., 2009, p. 230). It uses fantasy elements to reflect philosophical 

questions, internal conflicts, or abstract ideas. Rather than focusing on action 

or plot, literary fantasy prioritizes artistic expression and intellectual 

engagement (p. 230). 

Lastly, science fantasy is a hybrid that merges scientific speculation with 

magical features. These works may include advanced technology, space 

exploration, or futuristic settings while also involving supernatural or 

mythological components. The genre allows for a fluid interpretation of reality, 

where the lines between science fiction and fantasy are deliberately blurred 

(Stableford, 2009, p. 362). This makes science fantasy a flexible genre, but it 

can also make the translator’s job harder when trying to keep the story both 

clear and creative. 

Altogether, these subgenres demonstrate the complexity and richness of 

fantasy literature. Far from being a single form of storytelling, fantasy is a 

constellation of narrative types that offer different ways to explore the 

impossible. Each subgenre provides its own vision of reality, encouraging 

readers to reflect on identity, culture, and the power of imagination. J. R. R. 

Tolkien’s The Silmarillion brings together many of these subgenres within a 

single work. Though often called high fantasy, it also contains elements of 

myth, historical fantasy, and literary fantasy. It is structured more like a sacred 



19 
 

 

text or ancient chronicle than a traditional novel and it offers a deep backstory 

to the world of The Lord of the Rings. Its stories span from the creation of the 

universe to the downfall of great civilizations, told in a style that echoes 

religious scripture and epic poetry. The work’s focus on language, myth, and 

moral struggle makes it an example of how fantasy can be both imaginative 

and intellectually rich. As The Silmarillion can be considered as a fully 

developed mythology, it becomes essential to analyse how all these elements 

have been handled in translation across two different languages and cultures. 

2.6. TURKISH FANTASY LITERATURE 

While fantasy literature is usually associated with Western literary traditions, 

Turkish literature also holds a deep relationship with the genre. In the early 

19th century, Muhayyelat-ı Aziz Efendi (1796, published posthumously in 

1867) introduced Ottoman readers to a dreamlike narrative structure and 

supernatural encounters that resemble later fantasy conventions. Even though 

it was not considered fantasy at the time, scholars today see it as one of the 

earliest works to contain fantastical elements in Turkish prose (Özlük, 2014, 

p. 48). In a similar fashion, Filibeli Ahmet Hilmi’s Âmâk-ı Hayal (1910) used 

spiritual symbolism, dream journeys, and metaphysical spaces to question 

reality and self, aligning with the modern idea of philosophical fantasy (p. 56). 

In addition to written literature, oral traditions also preserved the fantastic 

imagination for centuries. Texts such as Dede Korkut and battle names from 

the Seljuk and Ottoman periods included supernatural beings, shape-shifting 

heroes, and divine interventions. These works reflect the mythic 

consciousness and moral allegory that characterize early Turkish fantastic 

storytelling (Uğur, 2019, p. 136). 

For much of the Republican period, Turkish literature remained dominated by 

realism and nationalist themes, which left little room for genres based on 

imagination or the supernatural. Throughout the 20th century, fantasy largely 

remained in the background, limited to translations of Western authors or 

Hollywood-inspired cinema. This led to the misconception that fantasy was 

either childish or culturally foreign (Özlük, 2014, p. 49). The 1980s and 1990s 



20 
 

 

saw some interest in science fiction and horror, but fantasy still lacked a strong 

local literary identity (Eviş, 2011, p. 82). 

By the early 2000s, this situation began to shift. Writers like Barış 

Müstecaplıoğlu brought attention to fantasy as a serious narrative mode. His 

Perg Efsaneleri series, beginning with Korkak ve Canavar (2002), marked a 

turning point in Turkish fantasy literature. These novels constructed an entirely 

original world with Eastern mythological influences, social hierarchies, and 

political tensions, offering an alternative to the European medievalism typical 

in high fantasy (Göker & Asutay, 2016, p. 121). Müstecaplıoğlu’s use of non-

Western character names, belief systems, and political structures created a 

local version of epic fantasy that resonated with Turkish readers (p. 122). More 

importantly, his work demonstrated that fantasy could also serve as a platform 

for social critique. Issues such as power abuse, marginalization, and class 

conflict were presented within the narrative, giving the genre both political and 

cultural relevance (p. 123).  

Meanwhile, scholarly discussions started to identify and classify subgenres 

like urban fantasy, dark fantasy, and sword and sorcery in Turkish literature. 

These categories, adapted from global genre theory, were increasingly applied 

to local narratives that explored themes of alienation, morality, and dystopia. 

These efforts helped clarify that fantasy was not a monolithic genre, but a 

flexible mode capable of engaging with Turkish realities across historical 

periods (Eviş, 2011, p. 83). 

In conclusion, Turkish readers are becoming more familiar with fantasy 

literature, but this has taken time. While fantasy themes have always existed 

in folk tales, epics, and older texts, many readers were not used to fantasy as 

a modern literary genre. For a long period, most people encountered fantasy 

through foreign books or films. As more Turkish writers began to create original 

fantasy stories, and as more books were translated, readers slowly became 

more comfortable with the style and structure of the genre. Today, Turkish 

readers are more open to fantasy and more interested in the creative worlds it 

offers. Although some cultural and language challenges still remain, fantasy 

literature now has a stronger place in Turkish reading culture than ever before. 



21 
 

 

CHAPTER 3  

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 

 

The study of translation has developed over many centuries, shaped by 

changing ideas about language, literature, and culture. In ancient times, 

Cicero introduced the idea of translating sense-for-sense rather than word-for-

word, especially in oratory (Munday, 2016, p. 30). St. Jerome, who translated 

the Bible in the 4th century, supported this approach, famously stating that he 

translated “not word for word but sense for sense” (Bassnett, 2002, p. 53). This 

idea became a key reference point for later discussions. 

During the Middle Ages, translation focused mostly on religious and classical 

texts, with translators working to preserve meaning rather than style (Bassnett, 

2002, p. 57). In the Renaissance, thinkers like Etienne Dolet emphasized full 

understanding and avoiding literalism (Munday, 2016, p. 43), while in the 

Enlightenment, John Dryden and Alexander Fraser Tytler developed more 

systematic approaches. Dryden proposed three types of translation—

metaphrase, paraphrase, and imitation—and preferred paraphrase (Munday, 

2016, p. 45). Tytler emphasized the need to reproduce both meaning and style 

(Bassnett, 2002, p. 67). 

In the 19th century, Friedrich Schleiermacher introduced a new idea: the 

translator should either bring the reader closer to the author or the author 

closer to the reader. He argued for preserving the foreign nature of the text 

(Munday, 2016, p. 47), which later influenced theories of domestication and 

foreignization. 

In the 20th century, linguistic theories shaped translation studies. Roman 

Jakobson defined three kinds of translation and stressed that all translation is 

a form of interpretation (p. 13). J. C. Catford’s work in the 1960s offered a 

detailed linguistic model, including concepts like translation shifts and 

equivalence (Catford, 1965, pp. 20, 73). However, his approach was later 

criticized by scholars like Bassnett for lacking attention to cultural and 

contextual factors (Bassnett, 2002, p. 22). 



22 
 

 

Overall, translation theory has grown from basic ideas about word choice into 

a broader field that considers language, style, culture, and reader experience. 

The 1970s marked the formal emergence of Translation Studies as a distinct 

academic discipline. A key milestone was the publication of James S. Holmes’ 

essay “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies”, in which he outlined the 

scope and subdivisions of the field (Munday, 2016, p. 16). Holmes 

distinguished between pure (theoretical and descriptive) and applied 

translation studies, establishing a research map that continues to influence the 

field today. 

Susan Bassnett’s Translation Studies (1980) was among the first texts to 

consolidate the field. In her view, the shift from linguistic to cultural frameworks 

was necessary because early models such as Catford’s “paid insufficient 

attention to the wider contexts within which translation occurs” (Bassnett, 

2002, p. 32). Bassnett advocated for a more interdisciplinary approach, 

bringing together linguistics, literary theory, cultural studies, and philosophy. 

The rise of Translation Studies was fuelled by dissatisfaction with the narrow 

scope of previous linguistic models. While Catford’s structural approach 

provided analytical rigor, it was inadequate for capturing details such as literary 

aesthetics, cultural context, and ideological positioning. 

At the same time, other scholars contributed alternative linguistic approaches. 

Eugene Nida, for instance, emphasized dynamic equivalence in Bible 

translation, aiming for a response in the target audience comparable to that of 

the source audience (Munday, 2016, p. 62). Although rooted in linguistics, 

Nida’s theory introduced pragmatic concerns and reader response into the 

translation equation. 

The 1990s brought further diversification. One important trend was the concept 

of translation as rewriting, led by André Lefevere. For Lefevere, translations 

are not neutral renderings but deliberate rewritings influenced by ideological 

and poetic constraints. Translators, therefore, are “refractors” whose work is 

governed by patronage, ideology, and poetics (Munday, 2016, p. 200). 



23 
 

 

Another influential voice was Lawrence Venuti, who challenged the invisibility 

of the translator in Anglo-American culture. He argued that dominant 

translation norms tend to domesticate texts, erasing the foreignness and 

minimizing the translator’s role (Munday, 2016, p. 228). Venuti called for 

foreignizing strategies that resist ethnocentric fluency and highlight the 

presence of the translator. 

Bassnett also recognized this ideological dimension. She noted that 

translation is never innocent, and that “the visibility of the translator and the 

manipulation of the text” are central to understanding how meaning is 

constructed and disseminated (Bassnett, 2002, p. 135). 

As translation studies grew into a more interdisciplinary field, the 

understanding of what a translator does also changed. Theories that once 

focused solely on linguistic accuracy began to include cultural, ideological, and 

literary dimensions. This broader perspective helped scholars understand that 

translation is not simply a technical process of changing words from one 

language to another. Rather, it is a creative and interpretive act that involves 

decisions influenced by culture, ideology, and the expectations of readers and 

publishers. These ideas became especially important in literary translation, 

where the translator has to deal not only with language but also with tone, 

style, cultural references, and aesthetic qualities. 

One of the most influential figures in this area is André Lefevere. In his book 

Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame (1992), he 

argued that translation is never neutral. According to Lefevere, every 

translation is a form of rewriting that is shaped by the ideological and cultural 

structure of the target society. Translators do not only reproduce texts; they 

adapt and reshape them in ways that reflect the values and norms of the time 

and place in which the translation is created. These influences may come from 

political pressures, dominant literary styles, or the commercial goals of 

publishers (Lefevere, 1992, pp. 9–10). Lefevere’s theory is particularly useful 

when analysing translations of literary texts that are rich in cultural and 

mythological elements, such as Tolkien’s The Silmarillion. His work helps us 



24 
 

 

understand how translators may alter or adjust a text to make it acceptable, 

understandable, or appealing to a different audience. 

Susan Bassnett has also played a central role in developing literary translation 

theory. In her book Translation Studies (2002), she argues that translation 

cannot be studied in isolation from the broader context of literature and culture. 

She suggests that literary translation is an act of cultural negotiation and 

should be analysed in connection with literary criticism, semiotics, and cultural 

studies (Bassnett, 2002, p. 6). She also points out the limitations of earlier 

linguistic models, such as those by Catford, which were too narrow to account 

for the complex cultural and literary functions of translation. Bassnett’s work 

emphasizes that the translator’s role involves much more than achieving 

linguistic equivalence; it includes understanding the social, historical, and 

political environment in which both the original and the translation exist. 

These ideas paved the way for more politically aware and ethically engaged 

theories of translation, such as those developed by Lawrence Venuti. Venuti 

brought attention to the translator’s position in society and introduced powerful 

concepts that directly relate to the aims of this thesis. In particular, his work on 

translator invisibility and the strategies of domestication and foreignization has 

become a cornerstone in the field of translation studies. According to Venuti, 

in many Western cultures, especially in English-speaking contexts, there is a 

strong preference for translations that are fluent and natural-sounding. While 

this may make the text easier to read, it often hides the translator’s role and 

removes the foreign qualities of the original text (Venuti, 1995, p. 12). 

Venuti criticizes this trend and encourages translators to use foreignizing 

strategies that make the cultural and linguistic difference of the source text 

more visible. He argues that this approach not only gives credit to the original 

culture but also makes the translator visible as a cultural agent who actively 

shapes the text (Venuti, 1995, p. 17). This discussion is especially relevant for 

literary works like The Silmarillion, where the richness of the fictional world 

depends heavily on the preservation of unique names, cultural references, and 

stylistic choices. The upcoming sections of this thesis will take a closer look at 



25 
 

 

Venuti’s theory, with a specific focus on the concepts of domestication and 

foreignization. 

To sum up, the theories of André Lefevere, Susan Bassnett, and Lawrence 

Venuti are used as guiding models for analysing the two Turkish translations 

of The Silmarillion. Lefevere’s concept of translation as rewriting provides a 

useful way to understand how translators make changes to a text not just 

because of language differences, but because of cultural, ideological, or 

literary pressures. His ideas help this thesis look at how translators may 

reshape the text based on the expectations of Turkish readers or the 

publishing context. Bassnett’s interdisciplinary view of translation also 

supports the analysis by underlining the importance of studying translations 

not just as linguistic products, but as cultural and literary acts. Her emphasis 

on power, ideology, and literary systems helps connect the translation choices 

in The Silmarillion with the larger context of Turkish literary norms. 

Most importantly, Venuti’s theory of domestication and foreignization plays a 

central role in the analysis. His ideas are especially useful when studying a 

fantasy work like The Silmarillion, where names and cultural references are 

crucial for building the fictional world. This thesis uses his approach to examine 

how visible each translator is in the final text and how much of Tolkien’s original 

culture and language style is preserved or adapted. These theories are applied 

directly in the case study section, where examples from the translations are 

analysed to see how proper nouns and culture-specific items are handled. This 

approach helps to show not only the differences between the two Turkish 

translations but also the broader effects of translation strategies on how 

fantasy literature is received and understood in another language. 

3.1. VISIBILITY / INVISIBILITY OF THE TRANSLATOR 

The year 1995 was a significant point in time for translation studies, as in his 

landmark work The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation (1995), 

Lawrence Venuti proposed the idea of translator invisibility, one of the most 

significant contributions to modern translation theory. According to Venuti, 

there is a strong inclination in Anglo-American translation culture to create 



26 
 

 

translations that read plainly and smoothly in the target language. However, 

this fluency frequently results in the translator's presence being obscured and 

the cultural otherness of the source text being suppressed (Venuti, 1995, p. 

1). 

Venuti begins his argument by outlining the dominant standard for translating 

texts into English: the illusion that the translation is not a translation at all. He 

states that a translated text is judged acceptable by most publishers, 

reviewers, and readers when it reads fluently, when the absence of any 

linguistic or stylistic peculiarities makes it seem transparent (Venuti, 1995, p. 

5). This fluency conceals the translator’s work and gives the illusion of direct 

access to the original text and author. Venuti says that this transparency 

renders the translator invisible, as their work and interpretive choices are 

hidden behind a seemingly neutral and natural target-language text (Venuti, 

1995, p. 5). 

Firstly, the historical evolution of this theory is traced by Venuti in his work. He 

demonstrates how English-language translation has promoted assimilation 

and fluency since the 17th century. As a reflection of larger colonial and 

imperial ideas, the objective has frequently been to "improve" or "naturalize" 

foreign works. He says that translators have subordinated themselves to the 

foreign author for a very long time, treating their work as derivative and 

secondary (Venuti, 1995, p. 8). Because of this heritage, translators have been 

marginalized in both the literary community and the larger cultural arena, 

discouraging them from exercising their own agency. 

Later on, Venuti explains that the wish to learn English well is not neutral but 

shaped by certain beliefs and ideas. It is an example of a hegemonic cultural 

practice in which foreign texts are assimilated into the target culture's norms 

and values. He says that the effect of fluency is to reduce the foreignness of 

the source text and to domesticate it for target-language readers (Venuti, 

1995, p. 16). According to him, translators reproduce cultural domination by 

creating fluid, clear writings that make the foreign "familiar." Venuti refers to 

this as "ethnocentric violence," when the source culture is silenced in order to 

satisfy the target audience (Venuti, 1995, p. 20). 



27 
 

 

All in all, Venuti emphasizes the moral implications of this false sense of 

transparency and urges translators to use "foreignizing methods" to reduce 

the "ethnocentric violence” of translation and challenge the hegemonic, 

linguistic, and cultural position of the language in order to become more visible 

in their work (Venuti, 1995, p. 20).   

3.2. DOMESTICATION AND FOREIGNIZATION 

The translation techniques of domestication and foreignization refer to how 

much a translator adapts a work to the target culture. Although these tactics 

have been discussed for a while, Lawrence Venuti was the first to present 

them to the area of translation studies in 1995 with his book The Translator's 

Invisibility: A History of Translation. 

Venuti claims that two fundamental translation techniques that offer both 

language and cultural direction are domestication and foreignization. 

Domestication is described as "an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to 

target-language cultural values, bring the author back home" and 

foreignization is "an ethnodeviant pressure on those (cultural) values to 

register the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text, sending the 

reader abroad" (Venuti, 1995, p. 20). In other words, domestication “brings the 

reader to the author”; it is the case “when the text is accommodated to the 

reader” (Paloposki & Oittinen 2001). According to Shuttleworth (2014), the 

term "domestication" or "domesticating translation" refers to a translation 

technique that uses a fluid and transparent style to decrease the feeling of the 

otherness in the foreign text for readers of the target language (p. 43). 

The translation method used in opposition to domesticating translation is 

referred to as “foreignization”.  According to Shuttleworth (2014, p. 59), Venuti 

uses it as a type of translation to describe the process of creating a target text 

that purposefully deviates from the target language's conventions while 

preserving part of the original's otherness. To put it another way, the strategy 

is consistent with Schleiermacher's theory that "the translator moves the 

reader towards him and leaves the author in peace, as much as possible" 

(Venuti, 1995, p. 101).   



28 
 

 

This is where Venuti's (1995) discussion of foreignization and localization in 

relation to the idea of invisibility becomes significant. In domestication, the 

target text is modified to satisfy the reader's expectations while disregarding 

the values of the original language and culture. To put it another way, 

domestication is the process of removing any foreignness that might arise 

while transferring as much of the original text as possible to the target text. By 

removing the foreignness from the text, the translator produces a transparent 

and fluid piece of writing. As a result, the translator is "invisible" in this instance 

since it is not recognized as a translation when the text becomes fluid. 

Therefore, Venuti argues that the techniques used for the fluent translation 

result in the loss of the translator's individuality by highlighting the translator's 

invisibility. So, it can be said that components of the source text's language 

and culture are lost when it is translated to the target text, and that the 

substance of the source text suffers certain losses throughout this process 

(1995). 

According to Venuti (1995, p. 20), the foreignizing translation only reveals the 

differences of the original text by dismantling the dominant cultural codes in 

the target language.  He says that such a translation method might be called 

“resistancy” since it not only hinders fluency but also rejects the culture of the 

target language while imposing its own ethnocentric violence on the foreign 

text (Venuti, 1995, p. 24). As a supporter of the foreignization technique, he 

claims that it aims to stop the "ethnocentric violence of translation." 

Furthermore, he states that, in the sake of democratic geopolitical relations, 

the foreignizing strategy in English might be used as a form of resistance 

against "ethnocentrism and racism, cultural narcissism and imperialism."  In 

order to identify the linguistic and cultural differences of the source text, he 

also strongly advises that a translation theory and practice be created that can 

survive significant target culture values (Venuti, 1995, p. 20). 

By analysing Venuti's definitions and implications of the domestication and 

foreignization approaches, it may seem as if the domesticating approach, with 

its fluid translation, does not in any way interfere with the reading experience 

and gives readers the impression that they are reading an original work in the 

target text; but it hinders the target text reader's ability to recognize and value 



29 
 

 

the linguistic and cultural differences of the source culture. The foreignization 

technique, on the other hand, enables target text readers to recognize and 

value the linguistic and cultural differences unique to the source language. It 

is crucial to remember that every technique has unique practical values and 

traits that may be used depending on the translated work’s place. 

3.3. CULTURE-SPECIFIC ITEMS IN TRANSLATION 

Before discussing culture-specific items (CSIs), it is necessary to establish the 

broader framework of cultural translation. This term has multiple meanings, 

but in general, it refers to how elements of one culture are represented or 

carried over into another. It involves explaining how members of one culture 

understand the world to those in another culture. (Conway, 2012, p. 21). 

Cultural translation shows that the act of translating involves more than words; 

it involves carrying across beliefs, norms, and social practices that shape 

meaning in profound ways. 

This is crucial for translation of culture-specific items (CSIs), which pose a 

significant challenge to literary translators. CSIs are textual elements that carry 

meanings deeply rooted in the source culture and often lack direct equivalents 

in the target culture. These include references to customs, institutions, 

historical figures, geographical features, social norms, and linguistic 

idiosyncrasies. 

Javier Franco Aixelá (1996) offers one of the most comprehensive definitions 

and classifications of CSIs in translation studies. He defines them as “those 

textually actualized items whose functions and connotations in a source text 

involve a translation problem in their transference to a target text, whenever 

this problem is a product of the non-existence of the referred item or of its 

different intertextual status in the cultural system of the readers of the target 

text” (p. 58). The translation of CSIs thus becomes a question of negotiating 

between the semantic field of the source culture and the expectations, 

knowledge, and receptivity of the target audience. 

Aixelá situates this issue within a broader discourse of interpretive and 

intertextual diversity, noting that language functions within culturally 



30 
 

 

constructed "arbitrary systems" that shape and limit meaning (p. 53). 

Consequently, a translator's task is not only linguistic but also hermeneutic 

and cultural. They must function as intercultural intermediaries who make 

critical decisions about whether to preserve, adapt, omit, or recontextualize 

culturally bound expressions. 

To systematize the possible approaches a translator may take when faced 

with CSIs, Aixelá describes two overarching categories of strategies: 

Conservation and Substitution. 

1. Conservation Strategies 

These strategies aim to retain the original cultural reference in the target text 

to the greatest extent possible, emphasizing fidelity to the source text and 

maintaining the foreign identity of the CSI. Conservation strategies are 

particularly important in literary translation, where preserving cultural 

specificity can enhance authenticity and reader engagement with the foreign 

context. 

Repetition involves the direct transfer of the CSI into the target text without 

modification. This strategy is often used with proper nouns or culturally 

significant terms that have no need for explanation. It is considered a 

"respectful" strategy because it minimizes intervention (Aixelá, 1996, p. 61). 

Orthographic Adaptation refers to adjusting the source term to fit the 

orthographic or phonological norms of the target language. It often applies to 

names or transliterated expressions from languages with different scripts (p. 

61). 

Linguistic (Non-Cultural) Translation uses a target language expression 

that matches the denotative meaning of the CSI but may lack the connotative 

or cultural depth. For example, measurement units or temporal references 

might be translated literally, though their cultural significance may not be 

preserved (p. 62). 

Extratextual Gloss offers additional explanatory information in footnotes, 

endnotes, or glossaries. This strategy acknowledges the foreignness of the 



31 
 

 

CSI while providing the reader with tools to understand its cultural meaning (p. 

62). 

Intratextual Gloss integrates the explanation within the main body of the text, 

avoiding interruption but still highlighting the need for cultural interpretation (p. 

62). 

These strategies are associated with Lawrence Venuti’s concept of 

foreignization, which supports making the reader aware of the cultural 

distinctiveness of the source text, thereby resisting cultural homogenization. 

2. Substitution Strategies 

Substitution strategies prioritize the ease of understanding for the target 

audience, often at the cost of the original cultural specificity. These strategies 

are used when maintaining the CSI might confuse or alienate the reader, or 

when the cultural reference is deemed irrelevant or too obscure. 

Synonymy involves replacing the CSI with a near-equivalent term that serves 

the same narrative or rhetorical function but lacks the original cultural 

specificity. This might include using indirect expressions or more general 

words (Aixelá, 1996, p. 63). 

Limited Universalization replaces a specific CSI with a more general 

reference from the source culture, chosen for its higher recognizability. It 

retains a cultural connection while broadening accessibility (p. 63). 

Absolute Universalization goes further by substituting the CSI with a neutral 

term that lacks any cultural marker, thereby erasing its cultural distinctiveness 

to enhance readability (p. 63). 

Naturalization replaces the CSI with a culturally familiar item from the target 

culture. This method supports reader identification but domesticates the text, 

often changing its cultural context significantly (p. 63). 

Deletion removes the CSI altogether, typically when it is judged to be 

irrelevant, ideologically sensitive, or excessively obscure. This is a radical 

strategy that may lead to significant loss of meaning or tone (p. 64). 



32 
 

 

Autonomous Creation introduces a new cultural reference in the target text 

that does not exist in the original. This invented element serves the function of 

the original CSI or compensates for its removal. Though creative, it is the most 

interventionist strategy (p. 64). 

These strategies align with Venuti’s domestication, which makes the text more 

familiar and accessible to the target reader but risks erasing cultural 

differences. 

In practice, translators often blend both categories within a single text. As 

Aixelá (1996) notes, “there is nothing odd in the same translator using different 

strategies to treat an identical potential CSI in the same target text” (p. 60). 

The choice of strategy depends on numerous factors including genre, intended 

audience, publisher expectations, and ideological considerations. 

Aixelá’s detailed classification helps translators and researchers evaluate how 

culture-specific content is managed in translated texts in a more structured 

way. It also provides a useful structure for comparing translations. It underlines 

both the specific choices made and the wider cultural and ideological 

influences involved in translation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



33 
 

 

CHAPTER 4  

CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE SILMARILLION AND 

ITS TURKISH TRANSLATIONS 

4.1. THE AUTHOR 

Early Life and Family Background  

John Ronald Reuel Tolkien was born on January 3, 1892, in Bloemfontein, in 

the Orange Free State (a former independent Boer republic in what is now 

South Africa). His father, Arthur Tolkien, was a bank manager for the Bank of 

Africa, while his mother, Mabel Suffield Tolkien, came from a family of 

craftspeople and teachers in Birmingham. The family’s move to South Africa 

had been driven by economic hardship and the search for opportunity. 

However, Bloemfontein proved an inhospitable home for Mabel, who disliked 

the harsh climate, and for young Ronald, whose early health was poor 

(Carpenter, 1982, pp.14-18).  

Tolkien’s father died of rheumatic fever in 1896 while the rest of the family was 

in England for a visit, effectively stranding Mabel with her two sons (p. 21). 

After Arthur’s death, Mabel returned permanently to England, living modestly 

on a limited income. She took on the education of Ronald and his younger 

brother, Hilary, instilling in them both a strong intellectual curiosity and a love 

of language, particularly Latin and French, and a deep appreciation for 

storytelling and nature (pp. 27-29). 

By 1904, tragedy struck again when Mabel died from complications of 

diabetes. Tolkien was just twelve (p. 37). This early loss could very well be the 

roots of tragic elements and spiritual undercurrents of The Silmarillion. 

Education and Linguistic Foundations  

Tolkien attended King Edward’s School in Birmingham, where he quickly stood 

out for his mastery of languages, both classical and invented. By his teenage 

years, he had already begun experimenting with invented languages, an 

interest that would grow into the central creative impulse behind his mythology. 



34 
 

 

His academic excellence earned him a scholarship to Exeter College, Oxford, 

where he initially studied Classics but soon shifted to English Language and 

Literature (Carpenter, 2002, p. 58). 

During these formative years, he formed close friendships with a group of like-

minded peers known as the T.C.B.S. (Tea Club and Barrovian Society). These 

young men shared their literary works and ideas, and their conversations 

helped shape Tolkien's early notions of myth, creativity, and the role of the 

artist in modern life. One of their aspirations was to change the world through 

art, and in Tolkien’s case, through the creation of a mythology for England (pp. 

54-57). 

This idea found its earliest expression in The Book of Lost Tales, the 

embryonic version of what would eventually become The Silmarillion. In these 

early writings, Tolkien began sketching out the legends of the Elves, the Valar, 

and the shaping of Arda. He was already envisioning a vast mythic world that 

could hold his invented languages and echo the scope of Finnish, Norse, and 

Anglo-Saxon mythology (Shippey, 2002, p. 28). 

Tom Shippey notes that Tolkien’s decision to ground his fiction in linguistic 

invention set him apart. He says “The invention of languages is the foundation. 

The ‘stories’ were made rather to provide a world for the languages than the 

reverse” (p. 219). This inversion of the usual creative process is key to 

understanding The Silmarillion, which began not with characters or plots, but 

with names and grammar. 

The Making of a Mythology: The Origins of The Silmarillion 

In 1917, Tolkien began to write what would become the earliest version of The 

Silmarillion. He referred to these texts as The Book of Lost Tales, and they 

included early drafts of “The Fall of Gondolin,” “The Music of the Ainur,” and 

“The Tale of Tinúviel” (Carpenter, 1982, pp. 90–92). These stories were not 

intended for publication at first, but as part of a personal mythology; a 

mythology for England. He wanted to create “a body of more or less connected 

legend”, as he later wrote, that he could dedicate “to my country” (Shippey, 

2002, p. 230). Tolkien described his approach in a letter much later: 



35 
 

 

“The invention of languages is the foundation. The ‘stories’ were made rather 

to provide a world for the languages than the reverse” (Shippey, 2002, p. 219). 

The first of these stories to be written was “The Fall of Gondolin”, in 

Staffordshire in 1917. In this story, Tolkien introduced many themes that would 

persist in later versions of The Silmarillion, including the heroic resistance 

against evil, tragic doom, and the complex moral conflicts of Elves and Men. 

Carpenter notes that Tolkien “wrote the tale in a school exercise book with a 

pencil” (Carpenter, 1982, p. 91). 

After the war, Tolkien briefly worked on the Oxford English Dictionary 

(Carpenter, p. 97), and then took a post as Reader in English Language at the 

University of Leeds in 1920. During his time there, he continued developing 

his legendarium and refining the Elvish languages, particularly Quenya and 

Sindarin, both of which were directly connected to The Silmarillion mythos 

(Shippey, 2002, pp. 229–230). 

Tolkien gave names to these early mythological writings collectively: “The 

Silmarillion” began to emerge not just as a single tale but as an interconnected 

network of stories unified by the fate of the Silmarils, the three sacred jewels 

crafted by Fëanor, an Elvish prince. These jewels, and the oaths and wars that 

followed their theft, would become the central narrative focus of his 

legendarium. As Shippey states, Tolkien had “an entire mythology in the 

background” of The Lord of the Rings—much of it conceived decades earlier 

as part of The Silmarillion (p. 60). 

4.1.1. Other Works of the Author 

The idea for Tolkien’s first published book, The Hobbit, famously began when 

Tolkien was marking examination papers sometime in the early 1930s. As he 

later recalled: 

“One of the candidates had mercifully left one of the pages with no writing on 

it (which is the best thing that can possibly happen to an examiner) and I wrote 

on it: ‘In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.’ Names always generate a 



36 
 

 

story in my mind. Eventually I thought I’d better find out what hobbits were like” 

(Shippey, 2002, p. 172). 

This sentence gave rise to the tale of Bilbo Baggins, the protagonist of The 

Hobbit, and Tolkien slowly began crafting the story, largely as entertainment 

for his children. 

In 1936, The Hobbit came to the attention of Susan Dagnall, an editor at 

George Allen & Unwin. She visited Tolkien at Northmoor Road and asked to 

borrow the manuscript after hearing about it from a mutual friend, Elaine 

Griffiths. Dagnall took the unfinished typescript to London, read it, and 

encouraged Tolkien to complete the book. On August 10, 1936, Tolkien wrote 

that The Hobbit was nearly finished, and the final version was sent off by the 

first week of October. Later on, the book was officially published on 21 

September 1937 (Carpenter, 1982, pp. 207-209). 

The publication of The Hobbit in 1937 marked a major turning point in Tolkien’s 

public literary life. Originally written for his children and shared among family 

and friends, the story found its way to Stanley Unwin, whose firm George Allen 

& Unwin published the book to critical and commercial success (Carpenter, 

1982, pp. 178–180). It was the success of The Hobbit that led Tolkien’s 

publisher to ask for a sequel—a request that eventually resulted in The Lord 

of the Rings. But from the start, Tolkien hoped instead to publish his 

mythology, The Silmarillion. 

In 1937, when Unwin asked for more stories about hobbits, Tolkien initially 

resisted. Instead, he submitted The Silmarillion for publication, hoping it would 

serve as a serious mythic foundation to The Hobbit. However, Unwin rejected 

The Silmarillion as unsuitable for the same audience (p. 186). In Tolkien’s 

words, the rejection “reduced me to tears, or near it” (p. 186). 

Tom Shippey points out that this rejection reflected a fundamental 

misunderstanding of Tolkien’s literary vision: The Hobbit was a late outgrowth 

of a much larger, deeper legendarium. Shippey says: “Tolkien had an entire 

mythology in the background, already in place before hobbits ever appeared. 

It was, in fact, The Silmarillion” (Shippey, 2002, p. 60). 



37 
 

 

Despite the commercial path set by The Hobbit, Tolkien continued to weave 

threads of The Silmarillion into his new work. As he began drafting The Lord 

of the Rings in 1937–1938, the world of the First Age, especially Elrond’s 

heritage, the Elder Days, and the Fall of Gil-galad, cast a long narrative 

shadow. By the time The Fellowship of the Ring opens in Rivendell, the events 

and themes of The Silmarillion develop the story through song, memory, and 

lineage. Shippey emphasizes that The Lord of the Rings operates on two 

levels: one as an adventure story and another as a deep continuation of the 

“older matter” of The Silmarillion. He says that this dual structure gives 

Tolkien’s work its unique “depth effect” (p. 59). Readers sense that behind 

every reference to Beren and Lúthien, to Morgoth, or to the Silmarils, there lies 

a fully formed mythology, written but unpublished. 

During the 1940s, the writing of The Lord of the Rings progressed slowly. 

Tolkien was deeply involved in refining the history of Númenor, which he tied 

directly to the downfall of Men and the rise of Sauron—a theme inherited from 

The Silmarillion materials (Shippey, 2002, p. 225). These tales, originally 

written during WWII and after, became known as the Akallabêth narrative. 

Númenor's fall mirrored Atlantis in its moral and cosmic collapse. Tolkien even 

jokingly referred to this as his “Atlantis complex” (Carpenter, 1982, p. 200). 

By 1949, after over a decade of writing, Tolkien finally completed the 

manuscript of The Lord of the Rings. But again, he insisted that it must be 

published together with The Silmarillion. He wrote to his publisher: “I do not 

wish to see The Lord of the Rings published alone. I have written it in the belief 

that it is only part of a larger whole, and cannot be fully understood without the 

background of The Silmarillion” (p. 228). However, publishers were again 

unwilling to accept the dense, archaic, and less hobbit-focused mythos of The 

Silmarillion. Consequently, The Lord of the Rings was published alone, in three 

volumes between 1954–1955, without its mythological counterpart (p. 229). 

Tolkien’s disappointment was severe, but he never gave up hope that The 

Silmarillion would someday appear. As he refined the appendices of The Lord 

of the Rings, he included hints of the deeper lore; genealogies of Elves and 

Númenóreans, the tale of Beren and Lúthien, and references to the Valar. 



38 
 

 

These additions were, in essence, a fragmentary bridge between the 

published story and the unpublished mythos. Shippey claims that even without 

The Silmarillion, readers sensed that they were only seeing the tip of the 

iceberg. The world of the Valar, the shaping of Arda, and the tragedy of Fëanor 

was waiting in the wings (p. 66). 

Even after the publication of The Lord of the Rings in 1954–1955, Tolkien 

returned to revising The Silmarillion. This period saw the development of the 

“Later Quenta Silmarillion”, with major rewritings found in Morgoth’s Ring 

(1993) and The War of the Jewels (1994), edited by Christopher Tolkien. 

Shippey highlights that these later revisions became increasingly complex, 

often forming “a chaotic palimpsest, with layer upon layer of correction,” and 

overlapping chronologies told in various sections (p. 208). In the late 1960s 

and early 70s, Tolkien made further efforts to organize and complete the work. 

He continued to labour over the text in retirement, but the book was still 

incomplete when he died in 1973. 

At the time of his death, The Silmarillion remained unpublished, although he 

had worked on it intermittently for over fifty years. The burden of preparing the 

vast and disorganized manuscripts fell to his son, Christopher Tolkien, who 

had long acted as his father’s literary assistant and confidant (p. 207). 

Carpenter records that Christopher Tolkien had been deeply familiar with the 

mythos from childhood. In the 1930s, as a boy, he sat by the stove listening 

intently to his father's stories of Beren and Lúthien, Morgoth, and the elvish 

wars. These tales were more than bedtime stories. They were, in fact, 

legendary histories being crafted aloud. (Carpenter, 1982, pp. 333–335) 

After Tolkien’s death, Christopher Tolkien undertook the task of editing The 

Silmarillion into publishable form. This was no easy task: the legendarium 

existed in multiple, often contradictory versions, with no finalized draft. Shippey 

notes that Tolkien was “never able to prepare this material for publication in a 

way which completely satisfied him,” even though he worked on it for “almost 

twenty years until he died” (Shippey, 2002, p. 60). 



39 
 

 

The published version of The Silmarillion (1977) was primarily drawn from 

sources below: 

• The Quenta Silmarillion, one of the most finished narrative versions 

• The Ainulindalë (The Music of the Ainur), his myth of creation 

• The Akallabêth, the history of Númenor 

• Of the Rings of Power, bridging the story to The Lord of the Rings. 

Christopher Tolkien, with assistance from author Guy Gavriel Kay, edited and 

compiled these texts, often stitching together material from different drafts to 

form a cohesive narrative. Shippey emphasizes that this editorial process was 

a reconstruction, not a simple redaction of a finished manuscript (p. 232). 

The Silmarillion was finally published posthumously by George Allen & Unwin 

in 1977, edited by Christopher Tolkien (Carpenter, 1982, p. 345). Its tone—

more mythic and elevated than The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings—divided 

readers, but many recognized it as "the work of [Tolkien’s] heart" and 

appreciated its mythological ambition (Shippey, 2002, pp. 206–207). 

4.2. SUMMARY OF THE SILMARILLION  

Ainulindalë 

In The Silmarillion, the first part is called Ainulindalë. It tells how the world was 

made through music. In the beginning, there was Eru, also called Ilúvatar, who 

existed alone and created the Ainur, holy beings made from his thoughts. 

Ilúvatar introduced musical themes to them, and from this music, the universe 

began. At first, the Ainur sang in solitude or in small groups, slowly learning 

from one another. Eventually, Ilúvatar proposed a great theme for all to sing 

together. As they sang, a powerful and beautiful music filled the void, building 

a vision of the world to come. However, Melkor, the most powerful of the Ainur, 

introduced his own themes out of pride and desire for power. His discord 

challenged the harmony of the others, causing confusion and strife in the 

music. Despite this, Ilúvatar responded by creating new themes that integrated 

Melkor’s disruptions into something even more profound and beautiful. 



40 
 

 

Ilúvatar ultimately silenced the music and revealed to the Ainur the world they 

had composed. He made it real, naming it Eä. The Ainur saw the vision of this 

world, with all its beauty and conflict, and Ilúvatar gave them the choice to 

enter into it. Many chose to descend into the world to shape it according to the 

music they had performed. These became the Valar and the Maiar. They 

began to form the world as seen in the vision, though they realized it was not 

yet fully made. Their power became part of the world itself, and they were 

bound to it until its completion. 

The Ainur who entered Eä worked to build the world. Manwë governed the air, 

Ulmo the waters, and Aulë the land and its substances. Melkor, still filled with 

pride, sought to control everything. He pretended to serve the world but 

actually tried to dominate it and become its lord. He introduced chaos, 

disrupting the works of the others. Still, the Valar persisted in shaping the 

world, though they had to undo much of Melkor’s damage. 

One of the greatest accomplishments of the Ainur’s labor was the shaping of 

Arda, the Earth. Although Melkor caused much destruction, the Valar’s efforts 

led to the formation of mountains, seas, and skies. Water held special 

significance, as it retained the memory of the Ainur’s music more than any 

other element. Ulmo, who loved water, maintained its presence and sound 

throughout the world. 

Despite th