I don't actually class the Silmarillion as a story book as such (like the Lord of the Rings is). They certainly do not read in the same way.

It's a History Book, in essence. I haven't actually been able to read it cover to cover, as I couldn't get into it at all. I have however, used it as a dictionary of sorts to look up words that I find in other Tolkien books to see where else they appear.

I'll probably give it another shot at reading sometime soon, as I'm a few years older now than when I last tried to read it. I'll either bring it back to my uni house when I go home for Christmas or get my Mother to send it to me.

How do you mean?

Yeah, I do. Though as I said, it's been a while since I looked at it, so my memory's a little rusty.

There are topics in Unfinished and Lost Tales that aren't in the Silmarillion. As far as I know, the creation of the Ainur and the building of Valinor aren't in the Silmarillion. My memory may be wrong here though.

Also, Unfinished Tales, Lost Tales, etc all have commentry on the stories within them done by Christopher Tolkien, enabling you to reach a higher level of understanding at what was going through Tolkien's mind, what parts of the story mean and what might have changed.

I have not been able to read much of the Silmarillion, but from what I have read, it feels like a history book with more telling the story as fact rather than showing a scene as in a story.  It is interesting.

Though I bought the Childen of Hurin when it first came out, I likely won't read it for a long time. I want to read the first 5 books of the History of Middle Earth first, then the Silmarillion and then the Child of Hurin.

Silmarillion rules!!!That's all I have to say...