Canon: what ARE we babbling about? [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

The Saucepan Man

08-18-2005, 06:05 PM

With regard to The Hobbit, it is important to view the story as an embellished or fanciful adventure novel from Bilbo's perspective.Why? I have never gone along with this idea that Bilbo must have exagerrated the tale of his adventure. Why can we not simply take it at face value (accepting, of course, the changes made to his account of his encounter with Gollum, as explained in LotR)? Why are Giants, for example, merely products of Bilbo's overactive imagination when the Stone Trolls and Dragon are clearly not? Why should we dismiss Bilbo's tale as a collection of febrile ramblings when we take the account written by Frodo and Sam as gospel? Why should Bilbo's account of his own story be considered fanciful, when his collation of Elvish history is taken as accurate?

Of course, you can view The Hobbit in that way if you wish, but it's not compulsory to do so. Nor is it unreasonable to interpret it as a faithful account.

As for the poll, Canon is defined in the dictionary (in this context) as:

... the recognised genuine works of a particular author; a list of these.Strictly speaking, that includes only the works which Tolkien himself completed and which were published in his lifetime. At a stretch, it might also include his unfinished tales as per the state that they were in at the time of his death and as subsequently published. But it would exclude The Silmarillion, which was edited by his son, and his letters, notes and the like.

Unfortunately, there's no option which precisely matches that, so I'll go with the "published during his lifetime" option, ie his completed works.

Edit: Actually, I'll go with the second option, although I would exclude The Silmarillion as edited/adapted by Christopher Tolkien.

davem

08-18-2005, 07:14 PM

Why? I have never gone along with this idea that Bilbo must have exagerrated the tale of his adventure. Why can we not simply take it at face value (accepting, of course, the changes made to his account of his encounter with Gollum, as explained in LotR)? Why are Giants, for example, merely products of Bilbo's overactive imagination when the Stone Trolls and Dragon are clearly not? Why should we dismiss Bilbo's tale as a collection of febrile ramblings when we take the account written by Frodo and Sam as gospel? Why should Bilbo's account of his own story be considered fanciful, when his collation of Elvish history is taken as accurate?

Verlyn Flieger addressed this question at Birmingham. The problem The Hobbit presents is that it is full of incidents that don't 'fit' with the tone of the rest of the canon/Legendarium. The 'cockney' trolls, with their talking purse, the 'tra-la-la-lally' Elves, don't 'belong' in the world of LotR, let alon of the Sil. TH is much closer to a story like Roverandom - a children's story which made use of the Legendarium as background. The only way it can be made to 'fit' is to construct some quite elaborate 'explanations' - the most effective of which, I suppose, is that Tolkien the 'translator' took the contents of the Red Book relating to Bilbo & deliberately re-told them in a way suitable for children. But that begs the question 'Why do that?' Flieger said that she didn't much like The Hobbit as a story & that she didn't consider it part of the story.

Personally, I love the book, but I can see her point. Those trolls are not 'Middle-earth' trolls, the Rivendell 'Elves' have clearly strayed in from 'Goblin Feet' & don't belong in Middle-earth. I think it was Brian Rosebury who stated that The Hobbit 'changes' its tone with the appearance of Elrond - others have stated that it begins with Gollum's appearance, & certainly the story from that point becomes more serious & darker in tone. But, for all I love the book I'm coming more & more to agree with Flieger.

Now, TH is still 'canon' in the sense of being a book Tolkien wrote & published, but is it part of the Middle-earth 'canon'? Well, only if Roverandom (& Goblin feet) is. Actually, I'd say Smith has a greater claim to inclusion in the Legendarium than TH....

The Saucepan Man

08-18-2005, 07:36 PM

The 'cockney' trolls, with their talking purse, the 'tra-la-la-lally' Elves, don't 'belong' in the world of LotR, let alon of the Sil. In your and Ms Flieger's opinion.

They belong in my Middle-earth.

mark12_30

08-18-2005, 07:43 PM

davem, I disagree. The idea that Elrond is too high and lofty to sing Tra-La-La-Lally is like saying Fordim is too sophisticated to write satire. I just don't buy it.

Take any high-fallutin' professor and set him (or her) in circumstances that bring out their inner glee, and you get child-like behavior. What was it Sam said about Galadriel? High and far-off as a mountain, merry as any lass with daisies in her hair? If Elrond can't crack a joke or join in a drinking game, then he's as grumpy as the movies make him out to be. I don't buy it. Six thousand years old, and he's forgotten how to laugh and sing simple songs?

There's also (Tra-La-La-Lally) the fact that The Valley Song is obviously made up on the fly. For fun. Because there are dwarves to tease. I can imagine more than one elf groaning, "Egads, he wrote it down!"

On trolls: If Sam's accent can differ from Pippin's, then one neighborhood of trolls can be more cockney than another. And one race of trolls can talk while the others are mute. (I'm not convinced that Mordor-trolls aren't chatty anyway-- I think that's a PJ-ism.)

What else? Some of the early wyrms (in the Sil) had no wings. Smaug has wings. Egads, a contradiction! No. Two different kinds of dragons. Just like there were different kinds of orcs; different kinds of hobbits; different kinds of men.

THe tone of the books differ-- because Bilbo differs from Frodo, and one story differs from the other. Bilbo's expedition wasn't about the end of the old ways, departure of the elves and the passing of the third age. It was about a treasure hunt.

davem

08-18-2005, 07:53 PM

Helen
Ok, that might account for it, but as I said:
The only way it can be made to 'fit' is to construct some quite elaborate 'explanations'

mark12_30

08-18-2005, 07:56 PM

Helen
Ok, that might account for it, but as I said: The only way it can be made to 'fit' is to construct some quite elaborate 'explanations'
I don't see those as elaborate in the least. I think they're pretty simplistic. "Diversity." "The mountain and the squirrel had a quarrel."

I think the whole "tone" idea is overdone.

davem

08-18-2005, 08:14 PM

I don't see those as elaborate in the least. I think they're pretty simplistic.

Ok, put TH on one side. The trolls, the Elves, Elrond, all the creatures & individuals who appear in The Sil writings & in LotR are consistent in their behaviour (no trolls in Beleriand or in Moria are called Bill, Tom or Bert - & if they were we'd be shocked!). Its only in TH that their behaviour differs so extremely. Not one 'Tra-la-lally' is heard in the whole of the Legendarium apart from in TH.

I accept that in the secondary world of M-e Bilbo found the Ring more or less as described & had more or less the experiences he had (because LotR states that), but if we're speaking of TH as part of the M-e 'canon', it is out of place, & while it can be read as a wonderfully entertaining story in its own right, it doesn't 'fit' in with the epic, tragic, mood of the rest of the Legendarium. Personally, I cannot see the Elrond (or Glorfindel) of The Sil or LotR 'Tra-la-la-lallying'. TH was not intended to be part of the Legendarium - & neither, at first, was its sequel. If it had been I don't believe the cockney trolls & the 'Tra-la-la-lallying' Elves would have seen the light of day.

TH is a book I love, but 'Middle-earth' it depicts is not the Middle-earth of the rest of the Legendarium - because it was never intended to be.

I have to stress that I consider TH to be part of the Tolkien canon, & that as a story set in its own secondary world, it works. Its only when it is read as part of the Legendarium, on equal terms with The Sil writings & LotR, that it 'fails'.

mark12_30

08-18-2005, 08:32 PM

We've got a hobbit named "Sam"; do we lose sleep over that? Or over his "Bless me, Mister Frodo" even though there's no church?

"it doesn't 'fit' in with the epic, tragic, mood of the rest of the Legendarium. "

So by your argument "THe Adventures of Tom Bombadil" isn't canon either. In order to be canon, the mood must be tragic? Then we throw out Sam's Oliphaunt, and his Troll Song-- it's absurd. Let's cut out "The Man In the Moon Stayed Up Too Late." Then we'll throw out Bombadil. And Pippin really must grow up and get serious. Boromir's sarcasm-- out. And Gandalf is not allowed any more fireworks-- they are beneath his dignity.

This tone thing has gone too far. Nobody in Middle-Earth is allowed to have fun. Including the Professor.

"Personally, I cannot see the Elrond (or Glorfindel) of The Sil or LotR 'Tra-la-la-lallying'."

I can. "Those were happier days."

davem

08-18-2005, 08:44 PM

mark12_30

08-18-2005, 08:53 PM

In the Council chapter her says he has lived through three Ages of the world & 'seen many defeats & many fruitless victories'. Given his history, including the 'loss' of his wife in terrible circumstances, I cannot imagine a 'Tra-la-la-laly' passing his lips.

On the contrary. All the more reason to laugh, lest one be consumed with grief. And I think Elrond would be wise enough to know that. Gandalf was. "Be merry; we meet again." Glorfindel's horse had bells on his headstall; hardly a somber design.

Elves laugh. THey can be deadly; they can be merry. It's part of their charm. "And Elves, sir! Elves here, and elves there! Some like kings, terrible and splendid; and some as merry as children."

Bilbo and Elrond in the Hall of FIre:
"I shall have to get my friend the Dunedain to help me. WHere is he?"

Elrond laughed. "He shall be found, " he said. "Then you two shall go into a corner and finish your task, and we will hear it and judge it before we end our merrymaking." Messengers were sent to find Bilbo's friend...

davem

08-18-2005, 08:55 PM

We'll probably have to agree to disagree. No hard feelings - I hope.

I blame Obloquy for starting this ;)

Bêthberry

08-18-2005, 09:00 PM

So by your argument "THe Adventures of Tom Bombadil" isn't canon either. In order to be canon, the mood must be tragic? Then we throw out Sam's Oliphaunt, and his Troll Song-- it's absurd. Let's cut out "The Man In the Moon Stayed Up Too Late." Then we'll throw out Bombadil. And Pippin really must grow up and get serious. Boromir's sarcasm-- out. And Gandalf is not allowed any more fireworks-- they are beneath his dignity.

This tone thing has gone too far. Nobody in Middle-Earth is allowed to have fun. Including the Professor.

Here, here, Helen! Let me echo what SpM posted earlier.

I think we can get too carried away with defining what is consistent with "the Legendarium." That is all well and appropriate for discussion of the inner consistency of the mythology and for an individual opinion or interpretation of the matter.

However, as Helen implies, there are many other works by Tolkien which don't conform strictly to the mythology. But why should the mythology become the defining characteristic?

Going by traditional definitions that pertain to literary studies (for what that is worth), here's Dictionary.com's definition of canon:

A group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field: “the durable canon of American short fiction” (William Styron).

The works of a writer that have been accepted as authentic: the entire Shakespeare canon.

Time was (and this is back in Tolkien's day), canon meant things that a writer published in his lifetime. In fact, students were not allowed to write dissertations on writers still alive, as such a dissertation would be incomplete, the writer still capable of producing more.

This is, of course, just one approach. It is, however, one which acknowledges all works a writer produces, not just those which conform to a standard developed later in life or after death.

Notoriously, Tolkien's ideas about Middle-earth changed as he wrote. This is the important thing about him: he did not achieve--and possibly never aspired to--a standard of art which imitated that of the elves. Time is everywhere in his work. Never again would he write in exactly the same style as he did for his children in TH. But he still went on to include silly Tom Bombadil in LOtR and another group of poems. He did not entirely lose a sense of whimsy and silliness. 'Smith' and 'Leaf by Niggle' are his works even if they don't quite fit his foreward to LotR.

Writers do not have to be consistent. They just have to be entertaining. And imaginative. And, in the case of fantasy, darn good at depicting a perilous realm. Maybe one way of thinking about this is to acknowledge that for Tolkien, the perilous realm was more than just Middle earth. And more than just tragedy or epic. "prose romance' covers a great deal.

Frankly, I agree with SpM that The Silm, as a work pubished after Tolkien's death and substantively editted and revised by Christopher Tolkien, is the questionable work. Without Tolkien pere's imprimateur, it is the Silm that 'fails' (sic), not TH.

EDIT: Opps. Cross posting with davem. Yes, blame oblo. The next best thing to Canada. ;)

davem

08-18-2005, 09:04 PM

Frankly, I agree with SpM that The Silm, as a work pubished after Tolkien's death and substantively editted and revised by Christopher Tolkien, is the questionable work. Without Tolkien pere's imprimateur, it is the Silm that 'fails' (sic), not TH.

I hope I answered your other points but I want to stress that I was referring to The Sil writings - ie the contents of HoMe, not to CT's 'reconstruction'.

However, as Helen implies, there are many other works by Tolkien which don't conform strictly to the mythology. But why should the mythology become the defining characteristic?

Because that's what we're talking about - not whether TH is a 'canonical' work in the sense of being something Tolkien wrote, but whether it 'fits' the Legendarium comfortably. Tolkien's 'discomfort' over its 'tone' implies he, at least, felt it didn't.

mark12_30

08-18-2005, 09:05 PM

We'll probably have to agree to disagree. No hard feelings - I hope.

Meet you behind the hedge! Zounds! Avast!! Where'd that gauntlet go?? Fordie?? Fordie!! Gauntlet-THIEF! ... I am without a gauntlet. :)

Very well, a truce it is.

I blame Obloquy for starting this ;)

Right-ho. Now, where's that barrage of flaming trout? Although, having been perch-slapped, that's quite as bad. ;)

the perilous realm was more than just Middle earth. And more than just tragedy or epic.

This makes good sense; IMO, I would rather include "The Man In the Moon Came Down too Soon" and exclude Christopher's liberties (in theory; I haven't set out to separate them yet nor am I sure I would find them!)

Bêthberry

08-18-2005, 09:14 PM

Tolkien himself repeatedly stated he was uncomfortable with the 'tone' of TH. I'd suggest that this 'discomfort' was not due to TH as a story in its own right, but purely because it had been taken up into the Legendarium & it didn't fit. He only changed the Riddles in the Dark chapter to make it more consistent with LotR - not because the original version didn't work in the context of TH itself.

And shame on Tolkien for making those changes. It's like an old gaffer embarassed about escapades of his younger self, and attempting to rewrite the historical account. EDIT: Or police explanations about deaths in custody: it might be what they wished to have happened, but that is not an honest reflection of what truly happened. And somewhere along the way, someone or some text gets demonised.

mark12_30

08-18-2005, 09:17 PM

The Canon is built from all extant writings. It contains all concepts that do not conflict with either tone or letter of the rest of the canon: for example, we cannot consider The Hobbit strictly canonical due to anomalies (or abandoned ideas). With regard to The Hobbit, it is important to view the story as an embellished or fanciful adventure novel from Bilbo's perspective.

Here was the departure from the discussion of canon to the discussion of tone and conflicts.

Saucie and I disagree that The Hobbit is any less canonical because it has a more whimsical style. Bilbo is just a more whimsical hobbit. Shall we imagine what LotR would have been like had it been penned entirely by Sam? Or Pippin? But though the tone would have been quite different, the tale would not have been less "MIddle-Earth", or less from "The Perilous Realm".

Edit: On the changes to The Hobbit: I think they were brilliant. It turns the whole thing into a living tale. "I have Bilbo's *original* version that he told the dwarves! Cool!"

davem

08-18-2005, 09:26 PM

And shame on Tolkien for making those changes. It's like an old gaffer embarassed about escapades of his younger self, and attempting to change history.

Couldn't agree more. But if he hadn't made those changes TH would have been even less 'consistent' with the rest of the Legendarium than it is. It was never intended to be part of it & making it 'fit', once LotR had become part of The Sil, was one of Tolkien's major problems in the early stages of writing it. As he stated(letter19):

Mr Baggins began as a comic tale among conventional & inconsistent Grimms fairy tale dwarves & got drawn into the edge of it (the Sil)

mark12_30

08-18-2005, 09:31 PM

Couldn't agree more. But if he hadn't made those changes TH would have been even less 'consistent' with the rest of the Legendarium than it is. It was never intended to be part of it & making it 'fit', once LotR had become part of The Sil, was one of Tolkien's major problems in the early stages of writing it. As he stated(letter19):

It began to "fit" when Elrond entered the tale, and the swords were revealed as being from Gondolin. He couldn't keep the Sil out of the Hobbit even then-- any more than he could keep it out of Roverandom.

And if he had suceeded in completely separating TH from the Sil, then where would his Hobbit Sequel have ended up? LOTR began as a simple Hobbit sequel-- and got "drawn up".

davem

08-18-2005, 09:44 PM

It began to "fit" when Elrond entered the tale, and the swords were revealed as being from Gondolin. He couldn't keep the Sil out of the Hobbit even then-- any more than he could keep it out of Roverandom.

But the point is he was making use of the existing mythology as background - as in Roverrandom - not writing a new story within the Legendarium.

And if he had suceeded in completely separating TH from the Sil, then where would his Hobbit Sequel have ended up? LOTR began as a simple Hobbit sequel-- and got "drawn up".

I don't think his problem was 'completely separating TH from the Sil'. Once he had allowed LotR to become part of The Sil TH had to be made to work & integrated as well as possible. Having said that (& Eru forbid it should ever happen!) if TH was to disappear completely there would be nothing of import to the Legendarium lost by that. We have enough of Bilbo's story in LotR for that story to make sense.

The inconsistency of TH with the rest of the Legendarium nagged at him for a long time. It didn't just produce the alterations to TH itself but The Quest of Erebor as well.

HerenIstarion

08-19-2005, 12:14 AM

But so far trouble had not come; and as Mr. Baggins was generous with his money, most people were willing to forgive him his oddities and his good fortune. He remained on visiting terms with his relatives (except, of course, the Sackville-Bagginses), and he had many devoted admirers among the hobbits of poor and unimportant families. But he had no close friends, until some of his younger cousins began to grow up.

I just can imagine younger cousins gaping at Bilbo and his stories, and him, in his turn, deliberately simplifying his adventures, making them less 'horrid' for youngsters' entertainment

(mind you, I had that impression prior to the release of the movies, where, I must admit, PJ grasped the idea wonderfully - the scene in Bilbo's party (Bilbo and children and story of the Trolls) was perfect)

if TH was to disappear completely there would be nothing of import to the Legendarium lost by that.

Can't agree less :)

1. Most of the readers would be lost (I for one - my Tolkien began with the Hobbit)
2. The possibility of publication of the Legendarium itself would be dubious

But these are reasons external, not to repeat things already said with regards to reasons internal, let me state my agreement with post #9 (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?p=407031#post407031)

Or, simpler - the Hobbit is, more or less, autobiography, it's tone hasn't have to be as lofty as that of a chronicle LoTR is (what with the latter being filled in not only by hobbits, but Gandalfs and Elronds and the like), much less so as of a mythology Silmarillion is.

Story of a 'fracas' (I like that word ;) ) in a bar:

1. (Autobiography) Listen, chaps, yesterday, I went to that bar, you know, Marty is a barholder, one with a blue oyester for a sign, and see, it was full of those shaven chaps in leather, and one of them, they called him Grubby or something, you know, kinda looked at me in a funny way, and than he kinda came over and tried to, dunno, sorta hug me, (heh, grubby is a good name, the way he grubs!) and, well, than I've hit him, and his buddies came over me, but I gave one of them, you know, what you chaps call my 'left hook' and he fell over, and than I've kicked another one in the ribs, and than Marty fired a gun, and than I was kinda knocked out and bah! I wake up in a Police station with all those shaven chaps lying around too! And I have this nasty cut behind my ear, don't remember getting it at all

2. (Chronicle) Yesterday, August 18, Mr. George Lashkhi, resident of Chughurety district, Tbilisi, Georgia, was spotted entering the public catering facility under the name of Blue Oyster run by Mr. Marty Smith, Esquire. Mr. Lashkhi was confronted there by Messers. Grubb, Grubb and Barrows, individuals who as reports say, essayed to harass Mr. Lashkhi. In the fracas following encounter of named citizens, three lamps were broken. Police arrived in time, as called for by Mr. Smith, and took all mentioned citizens into the custody.

3. (Myth) So it was that George the Lashkh entered the cursed inn of Blue Oyester, which lies southward of the Mighty Oak of the crossroads, and there coming behind him, Grubb the Smarmy, his brother Grubb the Barmy and their sister-son Barrows the Odious assailed him; and he vanished under the storm of blows. But he dealt them mighty blow of his left arm in return and retreated to the barstand. There he stood and gave way no more.
Then all the three swarmed against him, and they bridged the inn with their bodies, but encircled George the Lashkh as a gathering tide about a rock. There as the sun westered on the sixth hour, and the shadow of pine outside made the inn dark, George fell pierced with a venomed shard of glass in his head, and all his valour was vain; for the King's guards came, as treacherous innkeeper lead them in, piled George and his enemies in a heap onto their waggon and took them to King's dungeons

davem

08-19-2005, 02:13 AM

H-I Brilliant stuff - as usual. But I can only reiterate my point. I LOVE THE HOBBIT!!! Its far & away one of my favouite books!

What I'm saying is that TH is not necessary to the Legendarium. The necessary information it contains is repeated in LotR. Flieger told us that her children have never read The Hobbit. They began with LotR (at age two apparently!) & have gone on to read some or all of the rest.

I believe that a reader who first encounters LotR & then goes on to the Silmarillion before reading TH will not be expecting anything like they get, & is more than likely to find that the cockney trolls & the 'tra-la-la-lallying' Elves will 'break the enchantment' for them.

Like you, I read TH first, & may not have read LotR without that experience. It still holds a special place in my heart, but it is not necessary to an understanding of LotR or the Legendarium as a whole & I'd question the extent to which it actually adds anything beyond a warm 'nostalgic' glow to the experience of readers who are already familiar with it. I wouldn't be without it as a work of Tolkien's - anymore than I'd be without Smith or Niggle. I just don't feel it adds anything to the Legendarium itself & for some readers it may actually detract from the 'reality' of the secondary world.

Lalwendë

08-19-2005, 03:40 AM

The Hobbit definitely belongs in the canon/legendarium. I disagreed with what Verlyn Flieger said (davem knows this already ;) ) but more later.

Firstly, regarding the 'tone' of The Hobbit. It is no more variant to the tone of LotR than the Sil is different. On a scale, we have The Hobbit (exuberant and vivid), LotR (epic, and in itself variant in tone), then The Sil (biblical and ponderous and difficult in the narrative sense). Considering that the creation of his work took up most of his life, it is no surprise at all that each work takes on a different tone. If Tolkien had produced reams of books then the changes might appear more gradually, but he published slowly so such differences are more obvious. The Hobbit was written by a younger man, a new father, while LotR was written by a middle aged man, secure in his profession, while the later writings were produced by a man contemplating the end of life. Of course they are all different in tone.

Consider also that Tolkien was fastidious, concerned with detail and this makes it more clear why he became disatisfied with The Hobbit at a later stage. That he did experience some regrets is nothing unusual for Tolkien, he expressed regrets about LotR - one of his letters stated that it was finished 'such as it is'; he was never satisfied that his work was perfect. I've often expressed my amazement that there were not many more inconsistencies and mistakes within the Legendarium. Tolkien had only reams of notes and his own capacious memory to assist him in ensuring that what he wrote was not contradictory. In any case, what he wrote in the Hobbit does work.

As to whether we have to construct complex arguments to support The Hobbit and what it contains - we don't. We have no more a complex reasoning to produce than we do to fit in other ideas such as Glorfindel appearing twice, or the changes in Galadriel's personality and where Celeborn came from.

Now to Flieger. She has recently written on how the works in the Legendarium have the 'conceit' of being translated from old documents. Presumably Tolkien was the translator, and we might expect all the works to have the same tone. But no. Firstly he would have widly differing source materials to work from (any Historian would realise the problems of source materials) and it does not consider when the translator was working - which parts did he translate when he was young, which when old for example. Did he do a 'straight' translation or a 'loaded' one? Which audience was he translating for?

So taking these things into consideration, the voices of the original writers are likely to be different. Bilbo narrates The Hobbit, Frodo, sam, Merry and Pippin the LotR, and the Elves the Sil. Now consider Bilbo. He is what we today would definitely term 'middle class'. Here is where Flieger displayed a lack of knowledge/awareness of the British class system in her argument, stating that Bilbo was Upper Class, representing the 'What Ho?' sporty type. No, Bilbo, like Tolkien, was middle class through and through, slightly patronising to the working class, and disparaging of the upper class. His nerves over serving up all his nice cake to the Dwarves and feeling all flustered and not wanting to appear 'rude' are perfectly middle-class (if there was radio in The Shire, he'd have been an avid listener of the Test Match ;) ). This is who is narrating The Hobbit. He is akin to an older Daily Mail reader - not strident but quietly suspicious of things which may upset his comfortable routine. He is suspicious of 'foreigners', he thinks the effete Elves are a bit silly, and the trolls are 'uncouth'. Add to this that Bilbo loved to tell stories. This was his one great adventure, and he loved to tell people about it. Stories grow in the telling, and they alter, and he no doubt added colourful detail.

Flieger's argument used as a central thesis a point about the British class system that she had failed to understand. It also did not take into account whether the translator was working 'straight' or with an agenda.

Finally, we couldn't manage LotR without The Hobbit. Just one of the very good reasons for this is Gollum. Without having met him first and built up a feeling of both fear and pity for the creature, we do not have the same sense of him when we read LotR. When he finally catches up with Frodo we have already seen him with another Hobbit, we would not have that frisson of excitement and fear and wonder.

I know davem's going to argue with me... :p

The Saucepan Man

08-19-2005, 04:09 AM

Because that's what we're talking about - not whether TH is a 'canonical' work in the sense of being something Tolkien wrote, but whether it 'fits' the Legendarium comfortably.But that's not what "canon" means. Something is "canon" if it is part of the recognised works (which I would interpret as published works) of the author. In the context of Middle-earth this includes anything within Tolkien's recognised works concerning Middle-earth. It does not have to "fit" the style or mood of the other works in order to be canon, and neither does it have to develop the "story".

Having said that (& Eru forbid it should ever happen!) if TH was to disappear completely there would be nothing of import to the Legendarium lost by that.I simply don't get this. What is the "Legendarium" without the detail? Little of import would be lost by cutting out much of the detail of LotR. What does Bombadil add to the story? How does it further the tale to have a detailed description of Lothlorien or the plains of Rohan? No, Bilbo's tale of his adventure is as much a part of the "Legendarium" as Legolas' account of events at Pelargir and the description of Sam's temptation by the Ring. Otherwise where do we draw the line? If we were to start picking and choosing what is "necessary" to further the "Legendarium", there is a danger that we would be left with very little indeed. In fact, one might argue that this is exactly what happened to Tolkien's "Silmarillion writings" with the publication of The Silmarillion.

HerenIstarion - you are a master of analogy. But with this one, you have excelled even your own high standards! It illustrates the distinction between pertinent facts and entertaining detail perfectly.

Flieger told us that her children have never read The Hobbit. They began with LotR (at age two apparently!) & have gone on to read some or all of the rest.I must say that I feel rather sorry for Ms Flieger's children ...

davem

08-19-2005, 04:38 AM

But that's not what "canon" means. Something is "canon" if it is part of the recognised works (which I would interpret as published works) of the author. In the context of Middle-earth this includes anything within Tolkien's recognised works concerning Middle-earth. It does not have to "fit" the style or mood of the other works in order to be canon, and neither does it have to develop the "story".

So is Roverandom part of the Middle-earth canon? Roverandom had just as much of a basis in the Silmarillion mythology as The Hobbit when it was first written. I think you'd have a major problem fitting talking toy dogs & moon spiders into the Legendarium. TH was never written to be part of the Legendarium & Tolkien had to rewrite it to make it fit even as weakly as it does. If LotR had not been written - ie if The Sil had been accepted for publication as Tolkien wished after the success of TH, then no-one would have thought of it as having anything to do with The Sil. The world of TH is not the world of The Sil, its Elves & trolls are not the Elves & trolls of The Sil. They are the Elves & trolls of children's fairy story.

I simply don't get this. What is the "Legendarium" without the detail? Little of import would be lost by cutting out much of the detail of LotR. What does Bombadil add to the story? How does it further the tale to have a detailed description of Lothlorien or the plains of Rohan? No, Bilbo's tale of his adventure is as much a part of the "Legendarium" as Legolas' account of events at Pelargir and the description of Sam's temptation by the Ring. Otherwise where do we draw the line? If we were to start picking and choosing what is "necessary" to further the "Legendarium", there is a danger that we would be left with very little indeed. In fact, one might argue that this is exactly what happened to Tolkien's "Silmarillion writings" with the publication of The Silmarillion.

LotR was (increasingly) written to fit into The world of The Sil - TH was not. It had to be made (unsuccessfuly IMO) to fit by alteration. Its not a matter of what is 'necessary' but of mood, tone, style, content. TH belongs with Roverandom & to a lesser extent with Giles (& with Goblin Feet). All good (apart from the latter). It has links with M-e, but it doesn't fit, & it should be seen as a 'children's fairy story' work, a 'sub-sub creation. Bilbo experienced something of that kind, but I don't see any evidence that Tolkien was completely happy for it to be included. It had to be there, in a way, due to LotR growing out of it, but Tolkien expressed his discomfort with it. Its in the Legendarium on suffrance, because Tolkien couldn't rewrite it in a more suitable style - as he stated he wished to. If he'd had his way it would have been rewritten in the form of The Quest of Erebor. As such, it would have belonged.

And, let's not forget that the main reason LotR is dismissed by so many critics as a 'children's' book is because it is read in the light if TH. From that perspective TH may have done more harm to Tolkien's literary reputation than good.

Bêthberry

08-19-2005, 04:44 AM

So is Roverandom part of the Middle-earth canon? .

No, it is part of Tolkien's canon. ;)

EDIT:

And, let's not forget that the main reason LotR is dismissed by so many critics as a 'children's' book is because it is read in the light if TH. From that perspective TH may have done more harm to Tolkien's literary reputation than good.

Hmm. This must be yours (or Flieger's ?) interpretation, but that is not the full story of critical appraisal of Tolkien.

The Saucepan Man

08-19-2005, 07:20 AM

So is Roverandom part of the Middle-earth canon?I have never read Roverandom, but I’m guessing that it does not (and was never intended to) form part of the “History of Middle-earth” and therefore that it does not. Although I must say that talking dogs are not a far cry from sentient foxes and eagles. Perhaps we should excise the fox from LotR for not “fitting” the tone of the rest of the story. ;)

TH was never written to be part of the Legendarium & Tolkien had to rewrite it to make it fit even as weakly as it does.The point is, though, that he did deliberately make it part of the Legendarium, even if that was not his intention at the outset. Should we not therefore bow to authorial intent and accept it as such? :p

It’s your opinion that it fits only weakly, and you are obviously entitled to it. But, from what has been said so far, others are clearly of a different opinon. For my part, I do not see the expanations that Helen, HI and Lalwendë have given as being over-elaborate. The explanation that Bilbo was exagerrating much of it, however, I do find unconvincing. Bilbo the whimsical I can accept. Bilbo as Walter Mitty I cannot. :D

mark12_30

08-19-2005, 07:32 AM

TH was never written to be part of the Legendarium & Tolkien had to rewrite it to make it fit even as weakly as it does. If LotR had not been written - ie if The Sil had been accepted for publication as Tolkien wished after the success of TH, then no-one would have thought of it as having anything to do with The Sil.

The Sil was written and re-written but as yet unfinished, and LOTR did not yet exist, yet there was Elrond in TH-- talking about Gondolin and the Goblin Wars. TH snatched that little bit of Sil-background before LotR was even contemplated or asked for.

If you are saying that TH is not an integral part of the Sil, I agree with you. It ain't. But it arose out of the same compost (so to speak) and is part of the same forest.

Mister Underhill

08-19-2005, 09:39 AM

davem, I wonder if you'd care to back up some of these assertions that you make with such confidence ("the world of TH is not the world of The Sil", "TH was never written to be part of the Legendarium") with cold hard citations. I'm betting that if you can, I can contradict them with cites that run the other way. Here's a sample: The magic and mythology and assumed 'history' and most of the names (e.g. the epic of the Fall of Gondolin) [of The Hobbit] are, alas!, drawn from unpublished inventions, known only to my family, Miss Griffiths and Mr Lewis. I believe they give the narrative an air of 'reality' and have a northern atmosphere.

-Letter 15, 1937

Fordim Hedgethistle

08-19-2005, 10:17 AM

Geez, it's amazing how often I have to settle this issue for you all... :D ;) :p

According to the OED:

Canon

4. The collection or list of books of the Bible accepted by the Christian Church as genuine and inspired. Also transf., any set of sacred books; also, those writings of a secular author accepted as authentic.

Seems to me that if we're using the word 'canon' in its usual sense, then, it would cover everything Tolkien wrote -- at least, everything he wrote that we are willing to accept as "authentic":

6. Really proceeding from its reputed source or author; of undisputed origin, genuine. (Opposed to counterfeit, forged, apocryphal.

So, if we can prove that Tolkien wrote it, it's part of the canon. Now, whether or not you are:

a) compelled to accept what the author has written

b) willing to accept what the author has written

c) free to accept what the author has written, or

d) couldn't care less what the author has written

is another issue (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=10593) entirely.

obloquy

08-19-2005, 10:17 AM

The Hobbit fixes its own discrepancies by recognizing Bilbo as the author rather than Tolkien. He was writing an adventure story, not annals of Middle-earth. I asserted that it is not strictly canonical mythology-wise because Bilbo did not necessarily have this fidelity to fact in mind when writing it. The events presented in the book are still "true" events in the course of the Third Age, but the details, in my opinion, should be considered "flexible."

davem

08-19-2005, 11:41 AM

Hmm. This must be yours (or Flieger's ?) interpretation, but that is not the full story of critical appraisal of Tolkien.

I said 'so many critics'. I didn't say I was offering 'the full story of the critical appraisal of Tolkien'.

=SpmI have never read Roverandom, but I’m guessing that it does not (and was never intended to) form part of the “History of Middle-earth” and therefore that it does not. Although I must say that talking dogs are not a far cry from sentient foxes and eagles. Perhaps we should excise the fox from LotR for not “fitting” the tone of the rest of the story.

Bit difficult for you to argue the point then, isn't it? Anyway.

Neither was TH. In both Roverandom & TH Tolkien used his existing mythology to provide background & give the illusion of 'depth'. In fact Roverandom refers to the existing mythology far more specifically than TH. TH was written as a fairy story & had to be forced to fit the mythology. Therefore, unlike all JRRT's other M-e writings it was dragged in. The only other example of this being done by Tolkien was in the Figures of Tom Bombadil & Goldberry, who take on a completely different form when they appear in LotR to the ones they had in the original poem.

The explanation that Bilbo was exagerrating much of it, however, I do find unconvincing. Bilbo the whimsical I can accept. Bilbo as Walter Mitty I cannot.

Again, that's not what I said, so I don't see why I need argue. However. The Hobbit was not meant to be a part of The Legendarium. It had to be made to fit in. It doesn't fit that well, because the tone & mood is out of keeping with the rest of the work. Helen's, H-I's & Lalwende's 'explanations' which are intended to account for the differences in tone & mood between TH & TS & LotR are their own work & as far as I'm aware were never offered by Tolkien himself, who stated that he was uncomfortable with the style & tone of the work. Clearly Tolkien felt TH in its original form did not fit, or he would not have made the changes - many minor (see Anderson 'The Annotated Hobbit') & one major - the rewrite of Riddles in the Dark, which presents us with a completely different Gollum to the one in the original.

If you are saying that TH is not an integral part of the Sil, I agree with you. It ain't. But it arose out of the same compost (so to speak) and is part of the same forest.

That's what I'm saying. TH is part of the same 'forest' but its growing alongside Roverandom - the 'graft' onto the greater 'Tree' didn't take - IMO, of course.

davem, I wonder if you'd care to back up some of these assertions that you make with such confidence ("the world of TH is not the world of The Sil", "TH was never written to be part of the Legendarium") with cold hard citations. I'm betting that if you can, I can contradict them with cites that run the other way. Here's a sample:
Quote:
The magic and mythology and assumed 'history' and most of the names (e.g. the epic of the Fall of Gondolin) [of The Hobbit] are, alas!, drawn from unpublished inventions, known only to my family, Miss Griffiths and Mr Lewis. I believe they give the narrative an air of 'reality' and have a northern atmosphere.
-Letter 15, 1937

It was not written to be part of the Legendarium because the world in which it takes place was invented for the story & was not envisaged as part of Middle-earth. It only became part of Middle-earth when the 'New Hobbit' became LotR & was absorbed into the Legendarium. As for 'cold hard citations', I'll give you just one - HoMe vol 6.

As to the letter you quote. Again - Tolkien used elements from the existing mythology to create an illusion of 'depth'. He used it in the same way in both TH & Roverandom. If you accept one as an intentional addition to the Legendarium I'd like to see how you reject the other.

[b]Fordim[/i] I'm arguing about the 'canon' within the 'Canon'. I'm talking about what is 'canonical' within the Legendarium, the History of Middle-earth, not the wider 'Canon' of Tolkien's writing.

The Hobbit fixes its own discrepancies by recognizing Bilbo as the author rather than Tolkien.

No it doesn't, because the 'discrepancies' are too extreme, & were only made slightly less so by the changes Tolkien made to the original text. What TH actually is is a 'fairy story' written with no other purpose than to entertain his children. It owed at least as much to Wyke-Smith's Magical Land of the Snergs as to the Legendarium, if not far more. Dwarves in the Legendarium do not take out musical instruments & sing comic songs. Trolls do not have names like 'Bert, Tom & Bill. Elves do not sing 'Tra-la-la-lally'. If Bilbo Baggins says they did I'd like to know what kind of pipe-weed he was smoking.

TH is a beautiful fairy story, very imperfectly assimilated into the Legendarium - not because Tolkien was a bad writer/adaptor, but because the story was being put to a use for which it was not originally intended. It does not belong in the Legendarium in the form in which it exists. I admire all the attempts being made to 'explain' Bilbo's 'exagerations', but there's such a thing as 'straining at a gnat & swallowing a camel.'

What is of value in TH to the Legendarium as a work of literary Art (or Genius), is to be found in the pages of LotR. In itself it contains some wonderful episodes & the second half in particular is a very powerful & moving story, but it just doesn't fit at all comfortably with what precedes or follows it.

mark12_30

08-19-2005, 12:12 PM

Dwarves in the Legendarium do not take out musical instruments & sing comic songs. Trolls do not have names like 'Bert, Tom & Bill. Elves do not sing 'Tra-la-la-lally'. If Bilbo Baggins says they did I'd like to know what kind of pipe-weed he was smoking.

Old Toby, but that's beside the point. What other trolls names do we know? What other troll conversations do we overhear? None. They're too busy fighting.

Dwarves, and elves, singing comic songs-- that's like saying, because the story of Henry V is so majestic, nobody in the battle of Agincourt has a sense of humor. It doesn't follow. Galadriel being "Merry as any lass with daisies in her hair in springtime" disproves it. The idea that any playfulness is verboten, any comic relief is out of place, doesn't hold water in LOTR. Humor even shows up in the Sil, although it's a bit harder to find. "Nonetheless they will have need of wood."

TH is a beautiful fairy story, very imperfectly assimilated into the Legendarium - not because Tolkien was a bad writer/adaptor, but because the story was being put to a use for which it was not originally intended. It does not belong in the Legendarium in the form in which it exists.

I disagree. Original intent was clearly set aside, and although Tolkien had misgivings, clearly he got over them somehow and proceeded to connected the two. I do not see that connection as a mistake, a misplacement, or a mismatch.

I admire all the attempts being made to 'explain' Bilbo's 'exagerations', but there's such a thing as 'straining at a gnat & swallowing a camel.'

davem, honestly I don't think we're the ones swallowing the camel. Tolkien made the connection, despite some hemming and hawing (as was his wont, throughout the development of LOTR anyway, and was also the reason that the Sil wasn't published during his lifetime.) Tolkien put The Hobbit into the legendarium; we're letting him keep it there rather than arguing him out of his decision. Throwing out The Hobbit seems as utterly illogical to me as, apparently, keeping it in seems to you.

After all this I do notice that you haven't voted (few have.) Are you casting your vote for the final "Other" and submitting your new definition?

Lalwendë

08-19-2005, 12:43 PM

Whatever the 'tone' or more aptly, style, of The Hobbit, it still would not be enough reason to exclude it from the Legendarium. It includes tales of things which are relevant to LotR and relevant to Middle-earth and so it is included, just as would be Adventures of Tom Bombadil. Whether it is serious or not is no justification for leaving it out. Jane Austen wrote Northanger Abbey as a satire and it is very different in tone to Persuasion but we do not cast it aside in considering her work.

As has already been pointed out many times, Tolkien was a perfectionist. It is lucky that anything was published from his Legendarium, and I am sure he would have jumped at the chance to revise LotR - his letters following it are filled with explanations, some of which seem to be highly revisionist.

If the world in which The Hobbit takes place was not meant to be part of the Legendarium then what do we say about The Shire? The character of Bilbo as introduced in The Hobbit is an archetypal Hobbit, certainly at first before he goes off on his adventures, and for a good way into the tale he remains the uncertain and slightly sceptical character we first meet. When we get to LotR we are thoroughly convinced that Hobbits and The Shire are things worth saving, we do not need to be convinced that the Ring is a threat because we know. Even in the films there had to be a prologue because the story simply would not have been 'set up' enough. I feel sorry for anyone who has not started with The Hobbit as it prepares us for what is to come.

Even if Tolkien genuinely hated The Hobbit (and I don't think he did - he was merely being perfectionist as usual) then the fact cannot be altered that it was published prior to LotR and without it there wouldn't even have been LotR. It is a fitting prologue to the longer work.

OK, so we might read LotR very well without it as we can get 'the basics' from the later text, but it is a sorry state of affairs when we are told that it is not necessary as though reading Tolkien's work was merely an ordeal to be got through. Where is the magic in that? We might as well read Brodies' Notes and have done. Flieger's argument sounded rather like a long-winded way of trying to justify why she didn't like The Hobbit and it didn't work as an argument as she contradicts herself.

davem

08-19-2005, 12:55 PM

What other trolls names do we know? What other troll conversations do we overhear? None. They're too busy fighting.

Sorry, but the trolls of TH are different. The 'argument' is about why. Either Bilbo produced such a travesty of the facts as to call his whole account into question, or we have a totally unrelated story grafted on to the Legendarium - to the disadvantage of both.

Dwarves, and elves, singing comic songs-- that's like saying, because the story of Henry V is so majestic, nobody in the battle of Agincourt has a sense of humor. It doesn't follow. Galadriel being "Merry as any lass with daisies in her hair in springtime" disproves it. The idea that any playfulness is verboten, any comic relief is out of place, doesn't hold water in LOTR. Humor even shows up in the Sil, although it's a bit harder to find. "Nonetheless they will have need of wood."

I'm not saying 'playfulness is verboten' - I'm saying in the context of the Legendarium [/i]that particular kind[/i] of playfulness is out of character. If that kind of thing did not appear in TH it would simply feel wrong in the context of the Legendarium as a whole. Its the wrong kind of 'merrymaking'. The Elves of Rivendell in TH are just silly - the epic 'tragedy' is absent.

Tolkien put The Hobbit into the legendarium; we're letting him keep it there rather than arguing him out of his decision. Throwing out The Hobbit seems as utterly illogical to me as, apparently, keeping it in seems to you.

He put an adapted version of it into The Sil, & even after writing The Quest of Erebor he realised it didn't 'fit'.

Some of the details of tone & treatment are, I now think...mistaken. (Letter 131)

I might not (if the story had been more carefully written & my world so much thought about 20 years ago) have used the expression 'Poor little blighter.' just as I should not have called the troll William (Letter 154)

The Hobbit was originally quite unconnected, though it inevitably got drawn in to the circumference of the greater construction; & in the event modified it. It was unhappily really meant, as far as I was conscious, as a 'children's story', & as I had not learned sense then, & my children were not quite old enough to correct me, it has some of the silliness of manner caught unthinkingly from the kind of stuff I had served to me..(Letter 163) See also Letters 215 & 234.

Even so it (TH) could really stand quite apart, except for the references (quite unneccessary, though they give an impression of historical depth) to the Fall of Gondolin. Letter 257.

I think I can call on Tolkien's support - particularly in what he says in that last quote. TH could (should?) stand quite apart. One could not say that of LotR...

Even if Tolkien genuinely hated The Hobbit (and I don't think he did - he was merely being perfectionist as usual) then the fact cannot be altered that it was published prior to LotR and without it there wouldn't even have been LotR. It is a fitting prologue to the longer work.

No-one said he hated it. I said I loved it, but as a work in its own right, not as a part of the Legendarium.

OK, so we might read LotR very well without it as we can get 'the basics' from the later text, but it is a sorry state of affairs when we are told that it is not necessary as though reading Tolkien's work was merely an ordeal to be got through. Where is the magic in that? We might as well read Brodies' Notes and have done. Flieger's argument sounded rather like a long-winded way of trying to justify why she didn't like The Hobbit and it didn't work as an argument as she contradicts herself.

I don't see it as 'an ordeal' I just don't see it as a necessary 'prequel'. The true 'prequel' to LotR is The Sil.

(Flieger's argument didn't sound 'self-contradictory' to me....waits for slap :eek: )

Bêthberry

08-19-2005, 01:02 PM

Flieger's argument sounded rather like a long-winded way of trying to justify why she didn't like The Hobbit and it didn't work as an argument as she contradicts herself.

Maybe it's a professional ploy. Having so soundly and roundly defended Tolkien against criticism from some academic quarters, perhaps she feels must reaffirm her academic credentials by dissing the 'truly' 'childish' tale, TH. Sometimes all that light up there in the forest canopy makes it hard to see the fecund 'shrooms and ferns--the biodiversity-- a-growin' in the forest floor. ;)

mark12_30

08-19-2005, 01:07 PM

Some of the details of tone & treatment are, I now think...mistaken. (Letter 131)

Even if he wasn't being a perfectionist-- and I think he was-- even so, he said some of the details of tone and treatment. That's a long way from saying, the whole work doesn't fit so throw it out. Details are details. To exclude the entire work based on a short list of details doesn't make sense.

I might not (if the story had been more carefully written & my world so much thought about 20 years ago) have used the expression 'Poor little blighter.' just as I should not have called the troll William (Letter 154)

Again, these are details, and throwing out the work based on these details alone doesn't make sense.

The Hobbit was originally quite unconnected, though it inevitably got drawn in to the circumference of the greater construction; & in the event modified it.

He could have said the same thing about LOTR, which he didn't realise was going to connect so thoroughly to the Sil until he wrote Weathertop.

Even so it (TH) could really stand quite apart, except for the references (quite unneccessary, though they give an impression of historical depth) to the Fall of Gondolin. Letter 257.

Saying that the tale could stand apart is not the same as saying it is disconnected.

davem

08-19-2005, 01:20 PM

Even if he wasn't being a perfectionist-- and I think he was-- even so, he said some of the details of tone and treatment.

Typical English understatement....

Again, these are details, and throwing out the work based on these details alone doesn't make sense.

I'm not throwing it out based on those details alone - I've given a good few reasons...

He could have said the same thing about LOTR, which he didn't realise was going to connect so thoroughly to the Sil until he wrote Weathertop.

But he never connected TH so thouroughly..

Saying that the tale could stand apart is not the same as saying it is disconnected.

Nor is it saying the opposite...

As Tolkien stated the only reall connection between TH & The Sil are the references to Gondolin & they play a pretty irrelevant part. Tying TH so strongly into the Legendarium puts a weight on it which it cannot really bear - plus it makes a wonderful stand alone novel into a 'mere' prequel - something it was not meant to be, & a fate it doesn't deserve. TH should stand alone for what it was intended to be, a children's story - & it is a classic of that genre. Placing it in the Legendarium on equal terms with The Sil writings & LotR is unfair to it.

Lalwendë

08-19-2005, 01:21 PM

mark 12_30 has just said what I was going to use as an argument - Yes, The Hobbit can stand alone, but that doesn't mean it has nothing to do with LotR. The curious thing is that all of Tolkien's published works can stand alone; the person who simply reads LotR and cannot get through The Sil is a common person - meaning that there are a lot of people who do this and there is nothing wrong in that. And The Sil is as different to LotR as The Hobbit is to LotR. If tone and style are the consideration then we might as well chuck out either LotR or The Sil too.

Of course the Elves of Rivendell in LotR are a whole lot more serious. They are in the process of discussing the fate of Middle-earth!

To use the Letters is itself risky - here we have a highly verbose and occasionally opinionated Tolkien explaining the tales after the fact. It is a very convenient way for him to add in explanation which he may not have intended - and which may even be intended for the (then) sole audience of the recipient of the letter. He was also (like Flieger ;) ) an academic and an incredibly highly respected one at that and so his letters might be in some respects a form of PR to uphold his reputation.

davem

08-19-2005, 01:31 PM

TH is clearly a 'non-canonical' secondarytext, of dubious value in terms of the actualite it presents. It may be accepted by some readers as having a value to the main body of the myth & by others as being 'mere' entertainment.

I think that sums up the positions.... ;)

And Flieger's argument was well presented & cogent.

As is mine :p

Mister Underhill

08-19-2005, 04:08 PM

Ah, how selectively we quote!

Letter 131 (Expanded Edition):

Of course, I made up and even wrote lots of other things (especially for my children). Some escaped from the grasp of this branching acquisitive theme, being ultimately and radically unrelated: Leaf by Niggle and Farmer Giles, for instance, the only two that have been printed. The Hobbit, which has much more essential life in it, was quite independently conceived: I did not know as I began it that it belonged. But it proved to be the discovery of the completion of the whole, its mode of descent to earth, and merging into 'history'. As the high Legends of the beginning are supposed to look at things through Elvish minds, so the middle tale of the Hobbit takes a virtually human point of view – and the last tale blends them.

[Of the latter parts of The Silmarillion:] All through the twilight of the Second Age the Shadow is growing in the East of Middle-earth, spreading its sway more and more over Men – who multiply as the Elves begin to fade. The three main themes are thus The Delaying Elves that lingered in Middle-earth; Sauron's growth to a new Dark Lord, master and god of Men; and Numenor-Atlantis. They are dealt with annalistically, and in two Tales or Accounts, The Rings of Power and the Downfall of Númenor. Both are the essential background to The Hobbit and its sequel.

The generally different tone and style of The Hobbit is due, in point of genesis, to it being taken by me as a matter from the great cycle susceptible of treatment as a 'fairy-story', for children. Some of the details of tone and treatment are, I now think, even on that basis, mistaken. But I should not wish to change much. For in effect this is a study of simple ordinary man, neither artistic nor noble and heroic (but not without the undeveloped seeds of these things) against a high setting — and in fact (as a critic has perceived) the tone and style change with the Hobbit's development, passing from fairy-tale to the noble and high and relapsing with the return.
You (and Flieger, I presume) are way overstating Tolkien's feelings about TH.

You may consider Tolkien's integration of TH into the Legendarium clunky or inept and wish that it had never been attempted, but it is demonstrably absurd to contend that it did not happen, or that the world of TH is not the world of LotR and/or The Silmarillion.

Here are a few more Letters extracts for good measure:
"[The Hobbit] is not consciously based on any other book — save one, and that is unpublished: the 'Silmarillion', a history of the Elves, to which frequent allusion is made."
-Letter 25

"I am glad you enjoyed 'the Hobbit'. I have in fact been engaged for ten years on writing another (longer) work about the same world and period of history, in which at any rate all can be learned about the Necromancer and the mines of Moria."
-Letter 114

The Silmarillion was offered for publication years ago, and turned down. Good may come of such blows. The Lord of the Rings was the result. The hobbits had been welcomed. I loved them myself, since I love the vulgar and simple as dearly as the noble, and nothing moves my heart (beyond all the passions and heartbreaks of the world) so much as 'ennoblement' (from the Ugly Duckling to Frodo). I would build on the hobbits. And I saw that I was meant to do it (as Gandalf would say), since without thought, in a 'blurb' I wrote for The Hobbit, I spoke of the time between the Elder Days and the Dominion of Men. Out ofthat came the 'missing link': the 'Downfall of Númenor', releasing some hidden 'complex'.
-Letter 180 **EDIT:

Oh, and P.S.: I must say that I feel rather sorry for Ms Flieger's children ...Word.

davem

08-19-2005, 05:06 PM

The Hobbit, which has much more essential life in it, was quite independently conceived:

Which is what I said - in origin TH had nothing to do with the Legendarium. Whereas you stated:

davem, I wonder if you'd care to back up some of these assertions that you make with such confidence ("the world of TH is not the world of The Sil", "TH was never written to be part of the Legendarium") with cold hard citations. I'm betting that if you can, I can contradict them with cites that run the other way.

I think what you've actually done is confirm my statement.

But it proved to be the discovery of the completion of the whole, its mode of descent to earth, and merging into 'history'. As the high Legends of the beginning are supposed to look at things through Elvish minds, so the middle tale of the Hobbit takes a virtually human point of view – and the last tale blends them.

I don't think that's how most people read TH. The 'virtually human' point of view is served better by the early chapters of LotR. TH does it much less well. Bilbo - whatever Tolkien says here is much more of a fairytale creature himself in TH. Hobbits only become 'humanised' fully in LotR.

Both are the essential background to The Hobbit and its sequel.

That 'background' is not essential to TH. Did you wonder about Numenor when you first read TH? Did you even know about Numenor? This letter was written to Milton Waldman, who Tolkien was trying to persuade to publish The Sil. Neither FoN or ORP&TA are necessary to an understanding of TH - they are only necessary to an understanding of LotR. TH is not necessary to an understanding of LotR, though.

You may consider Tolkien's integration of TH into the Legendarium clunky or inept and wish that it had never been attempted, but it is demonstrably absurd to contend that it did not happen, or that the world of TH is not the world of LotR and/or The Silmarillion.

Did I 'contend' that - I must have missed myself saying that. The 'world', the millieu, the mood, the tone. The 'world' of TH is only the same 'world' if we limit ourselves to mere 'geography'. A secondary 'world' is not simply a geographical space on map.

"[The Hobbit] is not consciously based on any other book — save one, and that is unpublished: the 'Silmarillion', a history of the Elves, to which frequent allusion is made."
-Letter 25

This statement is directly contradicted by Tolkien himself in Letter 257 which I quoted earlier:
Even so it (TH) could really stand quite apart, except for the references (quite unneccessary, though they give an impression of historical depth) to the Fall of Gondolin. .

"I am glad you enjoyed 'the Hobbit'. I have in fact been engaged for ten years on writing another (longer) work about the same world and period of history, in which at any rate all can be learned about the Necromancer and the mines of Moria."
-Letter 114

This was written to a schoolboy. Tolkien would not have gone into depth regarding the way TH had become caught up in the Legendarium. By the time Tolkien wrote that letter (1948) TH had become linked in Tolkien's mind with the Legendarium. It was not part of the Legendarium when he wrote it.

Anyway, in short, you have offered no evidence (beyond yours & Tolkien opinion that TH is a vital part of the Legendarium. The Legendarium does not need it & TH is better off without that burden.

Mister Underhill

08-19-2005, 05:26 PM

The Saucepan Man

08-19-2005, 07:13 PM

Bit difficult for you to argue the point then, isn't it? I wasn't arguing anything. I was speculating in response to a question that you asked.

Neither was TH. In both Roverandom & TH Tolkien used his existing mythology to provide background & give the illusion of 'depth'. In fact Roverandom refers to the existing mythology far more specifically than TH. TH was written as a fairy story & had to be forced to fit the mythology. You say that elements of the Legendarium are present in both Roverandom and The Hobbit, but that neither were originally written as part of it. I don't dispute that. The difference is that Tolkien never incorporated Roverandom into his history of Middle-earth. The same cannot be said of The Hobbit. You make the point yourself:

TH was written as a fairy story & had to be forced to fit the mythology. Therefore, unlike all JRRT's other M-e writings it was dragged in.Personally, I would not choose the words "forced" and "dragged", but I agree with the point that you make here. Tolkien deliberately chose to incorporate The Hobbit within his history of Middle-earth. Whether that incorporation seems forced or whether one considers it smooth is not the point. It is clear from LotR that Bilbo's adventure, as relayed in The Hobbit, took place some 80 years prior to the War of the Ring.

As Mister Underhill said:

Of course there are the annoying facts of the Shire, the Ring, Gollum, old fairy-tale Bilbo himself, Elrond, Gandalf, Gloin, Balin, the Beornings, the Sackville-Bagginses (Heaven forbid! Too silly by far!), etc. and so on ad infinitum with which we must contend.I would add Frodo and co's encounter with Bilbo's Stone Trolls into the mix too. Wether they were called William, Tom and Bert or Wollyam, Tzomm and Bhat matters not. They existed. Bilbo and the Dwarves encountered them. And they ended up turned to Stone. Oh, and their cache included Glamdring and Sting, both of which played their part in the War of the Ring.

Whether you dismiss parts of Bilbo's tale as fanciful or consider them merely whimsical, the point is that the events that he related occured, within your "secondary world" as part of the history of Middle-earth.

Again, that's not what I said, so I don't see why I need argue.Actually, my Walter Mitty point was not made in response to you. Yet you go on to make it applicable to you:

Dwarves in the Legendarium do not take out musical instruments & sing comic songs. Trolls do not have names like 'Bert, Tom & Bill. Elves do not sing 'Tra-la-la-lally'. If Bilbo Baggins says they did I'd like to know what kind of pipe-weed he was smoking.

Either Bilbo produced such a travesty of the facts as to call his whole account into question, or we have a totally unrelated story grafted on to the Legendarium - to the disadvantage of both.

I'm sorry, davem, your attempts to argue your point are, as always, most valiant. But, on this one, I would advise that you heed the words of your former signature. :p ;)

davem

08-20-2005, 10:46 AM

Which davem am I talking to? The one who thinks Authorial Intention is all, or the one who apparently stands ready to jettison a whole book and (apparently) slash whole sections of LotR even over the claims of the author, all on the basis of the opinion of some Tolkien scholar? The latter -- at least for the present -- it seems.

I don't think I said I think 'authorial intention is all'. I said in other threads that we should try to just experience the art in as pure & uncluttered a way as possible. I've never suggested 'jettisoning' TH. I said it doesn't fit, in mood, tone or feeling, with the rest of the Legendarium. It doesn't - & everyone's attempts to make it fit require some \pretty convoluted 'explanations'. 'Bilbos' tale grew in the telling' 'He was 'middle class' & the tone reflects that bias' or SpM's

Whether you dismiss parts of Bilbo's tale as fanciful or consider them merely whimsical, the point is that the events that he related occured, within your "secondary world" as part of the history of Middle-earth.

(which btw is something I said myself earlier on.)

I never suggested 'slashing whole sections of LotR' either.

Of course there are the annoying facts of the Shire, the Ring, Gollum, old fairy-tale Bilbo himself, Elrond, Gandalf, Gloin, Balin, the Beornings, the Sackville-Bagginses (Heaven forbid! Too silly by far!), etc. and so on ad infinitum with which we must contend.

No, we don't have to contend with those things at all. We just see & treat TH as at best 'secondary' M-e literature'. All that the Legendarium requires of Bilbo's story is encapsulated in LotR. TH should be seen as a M-e 'fantasia'. You're trying way too hard to keep it as a primary text, equal with LotR & The Sil writings.

I would add Frodo and co's encounter with Bilbo's Stone Trolls into the mix too. Wether they were called William, Tom and Bert or Wollyam, Tzomm and Bhat matters not. They existed. Bilbo and the Dwarves encountered them. And they ended up turned to Stone. Oh, and their cache included Glamdring and Sting, both of which played their part in the War of the Ring.

Whether you dismiss parts of Bilbo's tale as fanciful or consider them merely whimsical, the point is that the events that he related occured, within your "secondary world" as part of the history of Middle-earth.

We're not talking about the events of the story but the kind of story it is. It doesn't belong in the Legendarium as a primary text. Its relation to the Legendarium is the same as that of Roverandom & the TB verses.

All I'm getting is that you guys want to keep it in for sentimental reasons. The fact that Bilbo & the Dwarves encountered three trolls, they found the swords & went to Rivendell is accepted. We're not discussing the events depicted - which are part of the Legendarium - we're talking about whether an (in parts condescending) childrens fairy story should be considered a primary text in the Legendarium.

As for the argument that the style of LotR is different from that of The Sil - this won't wash either, as there are Sil writings (the Narn & Tuor & his coming to Gondolin among others) which are in the style of LotR, & Appendix B of LotR is in the 'Annalistic' style of the Grey Annals & the Annals of Valinor etc). Only TH is out of place in terms of style, tone & mood - & the mental gymnastics required to make it 'belong' merely prove that.

I'm not saying you can't have TH. I'm saying it doesn't belong in the Legendarium. Sentimental justifications apart I don't see that anyone has offered any convincing arguments for that.

Bêthberry

08-20-2005, 11:41 AM

All I'm getting is that you guys want to keep it in for sentimental reasons. The fact that Bilbo & the Dwarves encountered three trolls, they found the swords & went to Rivendell is accepted. We're not discussing the events depicted - which are part of the Legendarium - we're talking about whether an (in parts condescending) childrens fairy story should be considered a primary text in the Legendarium.

. . . .

I'm not saying you can't have TH. I'm saying it doesn't belong in the Legendarium. Sentimental justifications apart I don't see that anyone has offered any convincing arguments for that.

Congratulations, davem, for taking the thread so completely off topic. ;) We were not discussing what belongs in the Legendarium, but what we mean by the word "canon". 'Canon' is not equivalent with "Legendarium."

From SpM to Fordim to my own posts, three of us have offerred definitions of that word in testimony to our point here--a definition which you have ignored and even studiously obfuscated.

TH is clearly a 'non-canonical' secondarytext, of dubious value in terms of the actualite it presents. It may be accepted by some readers as having a value to the main body of the myth & by others as being 'mere' entertainment.

I think that sums up the positions....

By the definitions offerred you cannot call it non-canonical and then say well, I meant non-Legendarium. And using the single quotation punctuation marks is a wafflish weasle bit of rhetorical legerdemain, roughly akin to having your cake and eating it too. And I am not aware that defining terms is a feature of sentimentality. :p

Your argument belongs in a completely different thread. I'm sure you would find yourself in less of a minority should you wish to argue it there. Although I'm not sure just what all the fuss is about.

Ideas evolve, transform. Sometimes we start out on the road without knowing where we will end. What was it T. S. Eliot said? Something to the effect of "to return from all our wanderings and know the place for the first time."

A children's tale that bore traces of Tolkien's own academic reading, lore, and languages is what got him going and what stimulated his publishers into getting him to write more. These are facts of publishing history. Maybe academics are embarassed about the significance of childish things to adults?

Lalwendë

08-20-2005, 12:35 PM

So, there is Tolkien canon and Legendarium canon? (davem has been insisting on this ;) ). From this there are certain texts which are plainly not part of the information which we have about Middle-earth - and there are those which plainly are about Middle-earth. However, I still do not accept that The Hobbit should be considered as separate from the Legendarium purely because it has a different tone and style.

Even if Tolkien himself did not think the style was coherent with the style of LotR and The Sil, it is still part of the Legendarium because it concerns plots, characters and places which we come across within other parts of the legendarium, and not just tangentially, but directly and extensively.

Many many writers have been and would be uncomfortable for certain works they have produced to be considered by scholars but nevertheless they are considered. Tolkien's own Letters do not demonstrate that he was particularly embarrassed by The Hobbit, merely that he didn't like certain aspects of it and in retrospect thought they may have been improved in some way.

The question of style and tone is now really just one of taste. The Hobbit is already out there, on release as t'were, and there isn't anything we can do about it, and as such it will inevitably be considered as part of ther Legendarium.

Maybe academics are embarassed about the significance of childish things to adults?

Too true I fear. Maybe it is one of the pitfalls of intellectualising a legendarium that is at root simply a good adventure?

davem

08-20-2005, 01:03 PM

Congratulations, davem, for taking the thread so completely off topic. We were not discussing what belongs in the Legendarium, but what we mean by the word "canon". 'Canon' is not equivalent with "Legendarium."

From SpM to Fordim to my own posts, three of us have offerred definitions of that word in testimony to our point here--a definition which you have ignored and even studiously obfuscated.

I think if you read Obloquy's post (no 5) you'll see where this 'canon' question arose.

There is a Middle-earth 'canon' - writings by Tolkien (& Christopher as well now) which are about Middle-earth. The question is which writings belong in it & what relevance they have. Therefore it is a question of canonicity in that sense. This thread is about what we mean when we use the term 'canon' in relation to Tolkien's writings. If we're simply going to accept the dictionary definition of 'canon' this thread is meaningless. Canon is defined (Merriam-webster) as:
a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works <the canon of great literature> Hence one can talk about the Middle-earth 'canon' (or Legendarium if you like.)

A children's tale that bore traces of Tolkien's own academic reading, lore, and languages is what got him going and what stimulated his publishers into getting him to write more. These are facts of publishing history. Maybe academics are embarassed about the significance of childish things to adults?

This is not relevant to the point I'm making - which is how or if TH is a primary text within the M-e 'canon' - or whether it actually belongs there at all.

Tolkien himself was uncomfortable with the condescending tone of TH - the knowing wink to the adults in the adults in the audience, what he called the 'pigwiggenry' (On Fairy Stories) - which is what we see in the early parts of TH/ In fact, as Flieger pointed out it was after the writing of TH that he wrote that essay. Certainly he never wrote in that 'style' again - if he had no problem with that 'tone' why not?

Even if Tolkien himself did not think the style was coherent with the style of LotR and The Sil, it is still part of the Legendarium because it concerns plots, characters and places which we come across within other parts of the legendarium, and not just tangentially, but directly and extensively.

Its a story that makes use of the Legendarium. & which Tolkien attempted to integrate into it at a later date. Whether he succeeded or not is the question.

Lalwendë

08-20-2005, 01:52 PM

Its a story that makes use of the Legendarium. & which Tolkien attempted to integrate into it at a later date. Whether he succeeded or not is the question.

In this sense, it makes use of The Sil, but it does not make use of LotR, it cannot, as it caused LotR to come into being. Without The Hobbit there would be no Ring, no quest and no LotR. We would have The Sil (possibly, if it was published, but it may just as likely have remained in Tolkien's desk) but there would be no LotR and probably no massive fandom.

Considering style and tone and whether The Hobbit fits with the style and tone of LotR, it certainly does, especially in the earlier parts of the book (LotR), and in reference later on (humour continues throughout the book). LotR in itself is shifting in tone and style and at the end it again echoes The Hobbit. If anything doesn't 'fit' it might be argued that it in fact could be The Sil which is very different in tone and style not only to The Hobbit but to LotR. The difference is much more marked between LotR and The Sil than between The Hobbit and LotR. However, I do not think any of the texts ought to be separated from the Legendarium merely due to stylistic properties.

As I've already said, a dislike of tone or style is usually a matter of taste. There are many many serious readers who do not enjoy the tone of the chapters dealing with the battle for Gondor but there are more who do appreciate the change in style and for whom this does not break the enchantment.

I think that what is at the heart of this is that Flieger's enchantment was broken by The Hobbit - maybe her taste veers towards the epic and the serious but for many more readers, the whimsical also has a strong appeal, as shown in the love for Tom Bombadil. The point Flieger made about 'pigwiggenry' was a moot point, a question of taste again. There is no evidence to prove that Tolkien thought his own work was 'pigwiggenry' - in fact judging by the words he uses to describe pigwiggenry, The Hobbit is anything but that.

Bêthberry

08-20-2005, 04:07 PM

I think if you read Obloquy's post (no 5) you'll see where this 'canon' question arose.

There is a Middle-earth 'canon' - writings by Tolkien (& Christopher as well now) which are about Middle-earth. The question is which writings belong in it & what relevance they have. Therefore it is a question of canonicity in that sense. This thread is about what we mean when we use the term 'canon' in relation to Tolkien's writings. If we're simply going to accept the dictionary definition of 'canon' this thread is meaningless. Canon is defined (Merriam-webster) as:
a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works <the canon of great literature> Hence one can talk about the Middle-earth 'canon' (or Legendarium if you like.)

This is not relevant to the point I'm making - which is how or if TH is a primary text within the M-e 'canon' - or whether it actually belongs there at all. . . .

No, you can't blame Oblo for your pertinacity, davem, for your number of posts on the issue has long out-run his. :p

Of course if you wish to insist upon your own exclusive 'true meaning' of Legendarium-canon, that is of course your wont and right.

And even if you wish to include a second author--Christopher--as legitimately co-determinant with the first--and exclude works of the first author as a result of that, that, too, is your wont and right.

Yet others are free also to demur that this form of argument prioritises some texts over others on the basis of what they perceive as a faulty argument.

This is not relevant to the point I'm making - which is how or if TH is a primary text within the M-e 'canon' - or whether it actually belongs there at all.

My point is relevant. TH belongs there because,it was TH which made LoTR possible. The Hebrew Bible --or Old Testament--made the New Testament possible. There are some books contemporary with the NT which some Christians jettison as apochryphal, but Christians still include the Old Testament with their Bible.

mark12_30

08-20-2005, 08:59 PM

I must admit to some surprise that after assembling the most complete poll I could, there are still options that I did not account for. Good thing Heren-Istarion included the "Else: Fill-In-The-Blank" vote.

Still, I think this all underlines the necessity of defining terms (yet again).

Perhaps we should beg Heren-Istarion to start a separate poll entitled "Which works of Tolkien should be excluded from the Legendarium." Or perhaps "Tone: the defining element or not?"

In the meantime, for this poll it would seem that davem has selected the "Else: fill in the blank" final option. True, davem?

In the meantime, Bethberry-- you did request the "Works published during the author's lifetime". I wait with baited breath wondering which selection you will choose.

davem

08-21-2005, 05:30 AM

No, you can't blame Oblo for your pertinacity, davem, for your number of posts on the issue has long out-run his.

I'm not 'blaming' Oblo . I was merely pointing out the starting point of this discussion.

TH belongs there because,it was TH which made LoTR possible.

No, it was The Sil which made LotR possible. If The Sil had not existed there would have been no LotR. TH provided the reason for Tolkien beginning LotR. That reason was soon left behind & LotR became the culmination of The Sil, not the sequel to TH.

Yet others are free also to demur that this form of argument prioritises some texts over others on the basis of what they perceive as a faulty argument.

I think everyone has accepted that the tone & mood of TH is 'unique', that the Elves, Trolls, Goblins, the narrative voice & even the character of Gandalf are 'wrong' in the context of the rest of the Legendarium. The only arguments against my position seem to be 1 - Tolkien wrote TH & it makes references to The Sil & 2 - Bilbo was 'elaborating' his story & had a middle-class bias against against 'foreigners'.

Nobody has provided a convincing argument that TH fits the mood & tone of the rest of the Legendarium.

Lalwendë

08-21-2005, 09:57 AM

No, it was The Sil which made LotR possible. If The Sil had not existed there would have been no LotR. TH provided the reason for Tolkien beginning LotR. That reason was soon left behind & LotR became the culmination of The Sil, not the sequel to TH.

This line of argument doesn't really make any sense. I could equally say it was my mother who made me possible and if she had not existed there would be no me. But my father had to exist in order to provide the impetus for me to be created. Just as The Hobbit had to exist to make LotR exist.

I think everyone has accepted that the tone & mood of TH is 'unique', that the Elves, Trolls, Goblins, the narrative voice & even the character of Gandalf are 'wrong' in the context of the rest of the Legendarium. The only arguments against my position seem to be 1 - Tolkien wrote TH & it makes references to The Sil & 2 - Bilbo was 'elaborating' his story & had a middle-class bias against against 'foreigners'.

Nobody has provided a convincing argument that TH fits the mood & tone of the rest of the Legendarium.

What I have yet to see is any convincing argument to say that tone matters all that much.

I have to draw davem's attention to something he said in the What breaks the enchantment (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11919) thread.

Its interesting that some things, some connections we make - whether its a connection with 'children's literature', a particular religious morality, or whatever will break the spell for us, while others won't - connections with other myths or symbols. So, it seems to be an entirely subjective thing - its not the author's fault. He doesn't break the spell - we do, by what we bring to our reading. Its not the author's faillure, but our own - if it was the author's failure it the spell would be broken for every reader at the same point in the story. The fact that what breaks the spell for some doesn't break it for others proves that the author has not failed.

As davem says above, if the 'spell' is broken then it is not due to the author, it is due to the reader. The Hobbit enchants the majority of 'Downers, who have accepted it into the Legendarium. I say that clearly Flieger was bringing in a whole cartload of 'baggage' to her reading of The Hobbit. Interestingly in the 'enchantment' thread there are several people who say that the 'spell' was broken when they read The Hobbit but that they found a way into the story (and indeed, there are many instances in LotR where the same thing occurs) - that is a more commendable approach than to look for an intellectual loophole and exploit it to explain why a text was not 'enjoyable' to an individual reader. Listening to what was being said I felt intense disappointment that the arguments of a critic which had been constructed to explain her personal lack of enjoyment may be taken to heart by Tolkien fans.

Yes, the tone is unique, but then the tone of those chapters dealing with the battle for Gondor are also unique, and so are the words of the Chapters in the Old Forest, and the words of the Scouring of the Shire and so on...we even see differing styles of Poetry within the text. Tolkien's work is shifting in tone and style throughout, and so it simply ought not to be taken into any account when considering if something fits the Legendarium. What matters is the story.

davem

08-21-2005, 10:34 AM

This line of argument doesn't really make any sense. I could equally say it was my mother who made me possible and if she had not existed there would be no me. But my father had to exist in order to provide the impetus for me to be created. Just as The Hobbit had to exist to make LotR exist.

What I was saying was that LotR breaks away from TH very early on in the drafting. TH becomes in many ways a source text. Tolkien did not write LotR as a sequel to TH - though that may have been his reason for starting to write it. From that pov TH did 'have to exist' - just as Beowulf, the Eddas, the Mabinogion & the Kalevala 'had' to exist to make LotR exist. I don't think anyone would argue that all Tolkien's 'sources' should be included in the Legendarium.

As to what I said in the quote Lalwende gives, I'm not sure how it applies. I was referring to an individual work of an author in that passage & how we experience it. This is a different argument - what belongs in the Legendarium & what does not. I don't consider that anything in TH 'breaks the spell' of the story. Its only when TH is taken as part of the Legendarium that it feels 'out of place'.

Bêthberry

08-21-2005, 11:09 AM

In the meantime, Bethberry-- you did request the "Works published during the author's lifetime". I wait with baited breath wondering which selection you will choose.

Ah, Helen, I made the request in reference to all the logical possibilities that our various Downers might wish for--witness SpM's concurrence--and not out of preference to see my personal choice 'pollarised', you might say.

I'm notoriously bad at polls and multiple choice questions. I drive telephone pollsters mad asking them what their questions mean and if a really off base interpretation is the one intended because then, well, I wouldn't really have the faintest clue how to procede. Or I offer my own off base interpretation which clearly shows how my answers are going to skew the data collection.

And so, in short, I've steered clear of actually voting on many of our recent polls. I have trouble deciding which side of my toast to butter too.

I find arguments like davem's to be really rather interesting, for they tend to shatter old assumptions and offer new ways of seeing things. What indeed is 'canon'. However, I also find that the most fruitful of this sort of iconoclastic approaches are those which result in some postive understanding, something which opens up new ideas. Something which simply excludes or diminishes our understanding becomes, imho, little more than an intellectual exercise, which of course is the game that academics play.

So, I would ask two questins. How does davem's argument open up the Legendarium to a greater understanding? What does it add so we can appreciate the mythology better? And, second, how does this approach help us understand TH better? Does it break the thing in the analysis?

Its only when TH is taken as part of the Legendarium that it feels 'out of place'.

Well, TH gave the world hobbits. And one hobbit in particular plays rather a special role in the Legendarium as explained in LotR. There might be some differences of degree between TH hobbits and LotR hobbits, but I don't think there is a difference in kind.

mark12_30

08-21-2005, 11:12 AM

Nobody has provided a convincing argument that TH fits the mood & tone of the rest of the Legendarium.

Nor, davem, have you suceeded in convincing us that Mood and Tone define the legendarium. I would say that most who have contributed so far, feel that Mood and Tone are *not* the defining factors in the Legendarium.

Lalwendë

08-21-2005, 11:30 AM

What I was saying was that LotR breaks away from TH very early on in the drafting. TH becomes in many ways a source text. Tolkien did not write LotR as a sequel to TH - though that may have been his reason for starting to write it. From that pov TH did 'have to exist' - just as Beowulf, the Eddas, the Mabinogion & the Kalevala 'had' to exist to make LotR exist. I don't think anyone would argue that all Tolkien's 'sources' should be included in the Legendarium.

Of course it breaks away, it's a different book - but consider that it also veers back to it again at least twice. And this is a very different text as 'source' than those by other writers - a Historian would term The Hobbit as Primary evidence while texts by other writers can never be more than Secondary evidence.

All three major texts are interlinked and should all be considered as parts of the Legendarium simply because the story demands we consider them together - and we can have any number of styles, themes or whatnot but without a story to hang them on there's nothing. The style is irrelevant as the story concerns Middle-earth, and the characters therein, and it is a necessary part of the wider tale; had Tolkien decided to write one of the texts in the style of Virginia Woolf or James Joyce we might think differently, but in reality the style is complementary so it ought not to be of great concern.

We could in fact consider the three major texts as a journey in themselves, undertaken both by reader and characters, a journey from innocence to maturity. The fun-loving Elves of The Hobbit are the Elves idealised, before the Fall, while the Elves of the Sil are the Elves in maturity, fallen from Grace. Or is that a long-winded explanation? Either way, it's no more long-winded than trying to discredit The Hobbit by speculatively referring to 'pigwiggenry' which we will never know if Tolkien intended to refer to his own work. :p

Each leaf, of oak and ash and thorn, is a unique embodiment of the pattern, and for some eye this very year may be the embodiment, the first ever seen and recognised, though oaks have put forth leaves for countless generations of men.

Here Tolkien (from On Fairy Stories) describes how a new story, though it may be a tale often heard before, may for one person cause realisation, a sense of wonder. By implication, this would suggest that for others, the tale does nothing at all. And that is fine, but taste should not be the standard by which we include or remove a text from the Legendarium. If it was, then a lot of people would have discarded The Sil by now as it can be an incredibly difficult book in narrative terms and is not always enjoyed. Tolkien's words as above, could also describe how the 'Tree' of the story has many different and unique leaves.

EDIT: I think that what Bethberry poses is pertinent, as I fear that by wilfully excluding a text we can only limit ourselves. The arguments posed by the 'pro-Hobbit' posters put up many arguments why The Hobbit is different and why it deserves inclusion despite having differences. I'm all for diversity, and where do we stop if we are to 'exclude' works due to 'tone'? Taken to a logical conclusion, we must also jettison LotR as it is not part of that pure Silmarillion corpus which was first conceived.

davem

08-21-2005, 11:48 AM

Nor, davem, have you suceeded in convincing us that Mood and Tone define the legendarium. I would say that most who have contributed so far, feel that Mood and Tone are *not* the defining factors in the Legendarium.

I didn't say they were the 'defining factors'.

So, I would ask two questins. How does davem's argument open up the Legendarium to a greater understanding? What does it add so we can appreciate the mythology better? And, second, how does this approach help us understand TH better? Does it break the thing in the analysis?

One, it hopefully leads us to look at the Legendarium as a work of Art & think about how & why it affects us. I'd refer others to the 'Children' section of 'On Fairy Stories' for why TH is out of place. I've tried to explain why I think TH doesn't 'fit', rather than just state baldly 'It doesn't fit!' & leave it at that.

Two, I'd say the main thing that prevents us understanding TH is our seeing it as being merely 'in the service' of LotR, rather than as a story in its own right. Read as 'merely' the prequel to LotR is bound to show it up poorly. If it was seperated out, & classed alongside Tolkien's other non-Legendarium writings (Smith, Niggle, Giles, Roverandom, Mr Bliss, Father Christmas Letters), we would more easily 'understand' what Tolkien was doing & what he wanted to give us.

Well, TH gave the world hobbits. And one hobbit in particular plays rather a special role in the Legendarium as explained in LotR. There might be some differences of degree between TH hobbits and LotR hobbits, but I don't think there is a difference in kind.

There is a dragon in Roverandom which is the same 'in kind' as Smaug - not a good reson on its own to include R in the Legendarium. What I'm saying (ad infinitum, I know!) is that TH should be seen as a seperate story which draws on the Legendarium, not as an integral part of it. The parts of TH which are relevant to the Legendarium are incorporated into LotR, therefore TH is not necessary to the Legendarium & as I said before I don't want to destroy all copies of TH or anything - I'm just questioning whether it should be included in the Legendarium, let alone considered a 'primary text'.

Bêthberry

08-21-2005, 12:05 PM

There is a dragon in Roverandom which is the same 'in kind' as Smaug - not a good reson on its own to include R in the Legendarium. What I'm saying (ad infinitum, I know!) is that TH should be seen as a seperate story which draws on the Legendarium, not as an integral part of it. The parts of TH which are relevant to the Legendarium are incorporated into LotR, therefore TH is not necessary to the Legendarium & as I said before I don't want to destroy all copies of TH or anything - I'm just questioning whether it should be included in the Legendarium, let alone considered a 'primary text'.

Dragons existed before Tolkien started to write. Hobbits did not. They are a wholly new 'species' in the perilous realm and as such the story which first presents them surely belongs with what else Tolkien does with them.

EDIT:

One, it hopefully leads us to look at the Legendarium as a work of Art & think about how & why it affects us.

Um. Maybe this is just messing around with semantics, but the Legendarium is not itself a work of Art. The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, the writings of HoMe are the works of Art. The Legendarium itself is something which readers compile from all those works.

I'd say the main thing that prevents us understanding TH is our seeing it as being merely 'in the service' of LotR, rather than as a story in its own right. Read as 'merely' the prequel to LotR is bound to show it up poorly. If it was seperated out, & classed alongside Tolkien's other non-Legendarium writings (Smith, Niggle, Giles, Roverandom, Mr Bliss, Father Christmas Letters), we would more easily 'understand' what Tolkien was doing & what he wanted to give us.

I have never had a problem respecting TH as a story or work of art in its own right when read as a prequel to LotR.

Lalwendë

08-21-2005, 12:24 PM

Two, I'd say the main thing that prevents us understanding TH is our seeing it as being merely 'in the service' of LotR, rather than as a story in its own right. Read as 'merely' the prequel to LotR is bound to show it up poorly. If it was seperated out, & classed alongside Tolkien's other non-Legendarium writings (Smith, Niggle, Giles, Roverandom, Mr Bliss, Father Christmas Letters), we would more easily 'understand' what Tolkien was doing & what he wanted to give us.

This argument presupposes that readers do fail to understand The Hobbit and the evidence in the form of an appreciative readership shows otherwise. If someone does fail to understand The Hobbit then they are free to do that individually but as a whole the Tolkien fan/critical community would not support this.

And to separate it into the bracket of other texts such as Smith etc. would be to denigrate it.

The parts of TH which are relevant to the Legendarium are incorporated into LotR, therefore TH is not necessary to the Legendarium & as I said before I don't want to destroy all copies of TH or anything - I'm just questioning whether it should be included in the Legendarium, let alone considered a 'primary text'.

And as I've already said, there is a lot of magic in The Hobbit and though the strictly necessary information may be found elsewhere, it would be a very sorry (and orcish) state of affairs if we reduced judging what is of value to that level.

davem

08-21-2005, 12:28 PM

Dragons existed before Tolkien started to write. Hobbits did not. They are a wholly new 'species' in the perilous realm and as such the story which first presents them surely belongs with what else Tolkien does with them.

Why surely? Its not 'sure' at all. That's what I've been arguing. It is lazy though....

Um. Maybe this is just messing around with semantics, but the Legendarium is not itself a work of Art. The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, the writings of HoMe are the works of Art. The Legendarium itself is something which readers compile from all those works.

No, Tolkien used the term Legendarium to refer to his mythology as a whole. He tried to fit TH into it. I'm arguing that was a mistake & that he never managed to successfully do it. The Legendarium is his Middle earth mythology as a whole.

And I have never had a problem respecting TH as a story or work of art in comparison to LotR just because it is silly and childish and lacks the high moral tone of LotR or the tragedy of The Silm.

Me neither - I just don't believe that, even though it is a work of art in comparison to LotR, it should be part of the Legendarium. And I have to say that your opinion of TH as 'silly and childish' is exactly in line with Flieger's position - though not with mine. It contains things (which I've detailed) which are 'silly & childish' when seen in the context of the Legendarium but not when it is seen as a work of art in its own right. As I said TH suffers by comparison when it is included in the Legendarium.

And to separate it into the bracket of other texts such as Smith etc. would be to denigrate it.

I don't agree - Smith & Niggle are profoundly beautiful works. I don't see how including TH with them 'denigrates' it at all.

And as I've already said, there is a lot of magic in The Hobbit and though the strictly necessary information may be found elsewhere, it would be a very sorry (and orcish) state of affairs if we reduced judging what is of value to that level.

And as I've already said, I agree there is a lot of magic in TH. I'm not attempting to 'reduce its value' merely questioning whether it belongs in the Legendarium.

Lalwendë

08-21-2005, 01:38 PM

In terms of the whole Tolkien canon it is the works which deal with Middle-earth which have the highest 'value' if such a price could be placed on his texts. We read and enjoy works like Smith etc. but like it or not we do use these texts to apply what they say to our own understanding of Tolkien's Middle-earth creation. The Hobbit ought not to be used in this way; to use it as source material to define our understanding of the 'serious' work does denigrate it. Why should it not be used in this way? Simply because it is part of the Middle-earth story. It is where we first meet many of the characters and gain our first understanding of that world. Whether or not Tolkien was successful at fitting it into the Legendarium is beside the point as try to fit it in he did. Which indicates that in Tolkien's opinion it is part of the Legenadrium, however clumsily or not it fits.

Bêthberry

08-21-2005, 03:33 PM

Why surely? Its not 'sure' at all. That's what I've been arguing. It is lazy though....

No, Tolkien used the term Legendarium to refer to his mythology as a whole. He tried to fit TH into it. I'm arguing that was a mistake & that he never managed to successfully do it. The Legendarium is his Middle earth mythology as a whole.

Me neither - I just don't believe that, even though it is a work of art in comparison to LotR, it should be part of the Legendarium. And I have to say that your opinion of TH as 'silly and childish' is exactly in line with Flieger's position - though not with mine. It contains things (which I've detailed) which are 'silly & childish' when seen in the context of the Legendarium but not when it is seen as a work of art in its own right. As I said TH suffers by comparison when it is included in the Legendarium.

Help me from this slough of laziness which I thought was a morass of logic. How one can, logically, exclude from the mythology the story which introduces one of Tolkien's most original contributions, the hobbits. The hobbits the most original part of the Legendarium. Furthermore, to jettison the original concept of hobbits for any later one is a revisionary act, particularly reprehensible if it attempts to deny the original conception and to deny that changes were made to the conception. Just what version of Galadriel are we supposed to use? That can be argued at finitum. The point about the Legendarium is that it is not a coherent system, not a Unified Field Theory and no amount of whittling can solidly put a round peg into a square hole. It is something that evolved over time and to ignore that evolution and the different stages of it is to falsify it.

By the way, by referring to Tolkien's use of the word Legendarium, you are backtracking away from your use of Legendarium as "a work of art".

And my use of 'silly and childish' in reference to TH was intended to be ironic,. Of course, I suppose you can ignore my intention and stick with your misreading, ;)but that would conflict with other comments I have made in defense of the 'childish' elements in TH.

davem

08-21-2005, 03:57 PM

How one can, logically, exclude from the mythology the story which introduces one of Tolkien's most original contributions, the hobbits. Aren't the hobbits the most original part of the Legendarium?

No, the Elves are. Tolkien's Elves are his unique creation - the name might have existed already, but as he says in Appendix F of LotR he merely made use of the closest modern term for his Eldar.

Furthermore, to jettison the original concept of hobbits for any later one is a revisionary act, particularly reprehensible if it attempts to deny the original conception and to deny that changes were made to the conception.

I'm not 'jettisoning' the original concept of hobbits. The Hobbits is TH owe too much to the Snergs. 'Hobbits' as we know & love them come in with LotR. Besides, I go back to my main point - TH doesn't 'fit' with The Sil writings or with LotR. It is a children's adventure story, which uses comic Elves, Dwarves & Trolls etc, the creatures of Northern myth, in a highly adventurous, comic saga. It wasn't written as part of the Sil saga, the Legendarium. Tolkien attempted to integrate it, rather than keep it as what it had been. The question, a valid one as far as I can see, is whether that was a correct decision. I don't deny its place in the Tolkien canon, only in the Middle-earth one.

It is something that evolved over time and to ignore that evolution and the different stages of it is to falsify it.

No, TH was not part of the 'evolution' of M-e - it was nothing to do with M-e. LotR was sparked by it but became the sequel to & culmination of The Sil.

Just what version of Galadriel are we supposed to use?

Galadriel was only ever part of the Legendarium. There are changes made within the Legendarium & outside matter which Tolkien attempted to integrate into it. Two different things. TH may well be 'the best introduction to the Mountains' but it is not part of them.

By the way, by referring to Tolkien's use of the word Legendarium, you are backtracking away from your use of Legendarium as "a work of art".

I was being ironic.....

The Saucepan Man

08-21-2005, 06:34 PM

Davem. However many times you restate your argument, you are not going to convince me. Nor, I suspect, the majority of contributors to this thread.

As far as I am concerned, any concept of Tolkien's Legendarium which does not include The Hobbit is one that I am not interested in.

I accept, of course, that you are entitled to jettison The Hobbit from your own interpretation of the Legendarium, contrary to the author's intentions. It is your right as a reader. :p ;)

Mister Underhill

08-21-2005, 06:37 PM

I said it doesn't fit, in mood, tone or feeling, with the rest of the Legendarium. It doesn't - & everyone's attempts to make it fit require some \pretty convoluted 'explanations'. I think yours is the convoluted explanation. The simple explanation is Tolkien's to the schoolboy: "I am glad you enjoyed 'the Hobbit'. I have in fact been engaged for ten years on writing another (longer) work about the same world and period of history, in which at any rate all can be learned about the Necromancer and the mines of Moria."

Now try making your explanation of why TH isn't a Middle-earth book to a schoolboy and see which one is more strained and convoluted. I'm saying it doesn't belong in the Legendarium. Sentimental justifications apart I don't see that anyone has offered any convincing arguments for that.On our side is the opinion of the author himself that TH was an integral part of his world, as well as connections of plot, character, geography, and history. Sorry, but if you want to see The Hobbit excluded from the Legendarium, the burden of a convincing argument falls on your shoulders. TH is self-evidently a book which takes place in and is about Middle-earth. The only "evidence" you've presented to the contrary is yours and Flieger's opinion about its tone and style. It wasn't written as part of the Sil saga, the Legendarium.It perhaps wasn't begun as part of the Sil saga, but that quickly changed. I didn't say they were the 'defining factors'.Then what are the defining factors? You've already stipulated that the characters, events, and geography are the same as in LotR. Its a story that makes use of the Legendarium. & which Tolkien attempted to integrate into it at a later date.This is untrue, or at least misleading. Tolkien did not complete TH and then later attempt to integrate it into the world of the Sil. It was drawn into the world of the Sil as he wrote. Whether he succeeded or not is the question.What he actually failed to do was to "integrate" the old Sil legends fully into the new reality of Middle-earth which TH and LotR created. There is no complete Silmarillion. What you consider to be the rock upon which the Legendarium is built simply doesn't exist in any finished form.

HerenIstarion

08-22-2005, 12:46 AM

TH may well be 'the best introduction to the Mountains' but it is not part of them.

m-mm, would it help to consider the whole as a 'journey', and the Hobbit as the path where the road begins? In the light of Bilbo's:

He used often to say there was only one Road; that it was like a great river: its springs were at every doorstep, and every path was its tributary. “It’s a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door,” he used to say. “You step into the Road, and if you don’t keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.

If you look back from the summit, all the way you've come will make part of the 'journey to the mountains', not only the path that lead you up from mountain's immediate foot.

davem

08-22-2005, 05:39 AM

Now try making your explanation of why TH isn't a Middle-earth book to a schoolboy and see which one is more strained and convoluted.

I'm not sure how that's relevant. There are lots of true things which are not easily explicable to schoolchildren.

On our side is the opinion of the author himself that TH was an integral part of his world, as well as connections of plot, character, geography, and history. Sorry, but if you want to see The Hobbit excluded from the Legendarium, the burden of a convincing argument falls on your shoulders. TH is self-evidently a book which takes place in and is about Middle-earth. The only "evidence" you've presented to the contrary is yours and Flieger's opinion about its tone and style.

The 'historical' references in TH are few & are only there - as Tolkien stated - to give a sense of historical 'depth'. I didn't just offer 'tone & style' - I offered the out of character behaviour of Elves, Dwarves, Trolls (& of Gnadalf himself come to that).

It perhaps wasn't begun as part of the Sil saga, but that quickly
changed.This is untrue, or at least misleading. Tolkien did not complete TH and then later attempt to integrate it into the world of the Sil. It was drawn into the world of the Sil as he wrote.

No, it didn't - that's what happened with LotR. TH from beginning to end was never part of the Legendarium, & its sequel 'The New Hobbit' was not part of the Legendarium when Tolkien began it. Only when LotR became the culmination of the Legendarium did Tolkien feel it was necessary to find a way to make TH fit. Again, I'd offer Anderson's Annotated Hobbit & HoMe 6 as proof of that.

Davem. However many times you restate your argument, you are not going to convince me. Nor, I suspect, the majority of contributors to this thread.

I'm not looking to convince anyone.

HerenIstarion

08-22-2005, 05:46 AM

I'm not looking to convince anyone

Now that does sound unconvincing :)

davem

08-22-2005, 10:34 AM

Now that does sound unconvincing :)

No. really. I'm just putting the case. Making people aware of the theory. What people do with it is up to them.

EDIT

If a movie of TH is made what style do you think it would be made in? Would it be made in the 'adult', epic style of LotR (book & movies) or in the style of the book? If it was made in the style of the book what do you think the reaction of those who only knew the movies would be? I've lost count of the number of people who have said that leaving out Tom Bombadil was right because of the 'tweeness' of the episode (which is an opinion I've never agreed with btw) but can anyone really see the cockney Trolls & the Tra-la-la-lallying Elves producing and don't give me the old 'film is a different medium - we're not talking about presentation but about content.

Lalwendë

08-22-2005, 02:49 PM

If a movie of TH is made what style do you think it would be made in? Would it be made in the 'adult', epic style of LotR (book & movies) or in the style of the book? If it was made in the style of the book what do you think the reaction of those who only knew the movies would be? I've lost count of the number of people who have said that leaving out Tom Bombadil was right because of the 'tweeness' of the episode (which is an opinion I've never agreed with btw) but can anyone really see the cockney Trolls & the Tra-la-la-lallying Elves producing and don't give me the old 'film is a different medium - we're not talking about presentation but about content.

Now then, davem, you know as well as anyone else that if/when PJ makes a film of The Hobbit he will do as he pleases in what he puts on screen. There are already Cockney Orcs in his LotR films so Cockney trolls won't be any problem. And I can easily see him turn the 'Tra-la-la-lallying' into a more sinister, dark form of Elvish humour.

Now from what I've heard people said it was OK to leave out Tom because the episode wasn't necessary to the story. And then I've heard so many people say 'but it took the magic away!' - films have a great deal of concern with plot and action (at least the LotR films did, I'm not including Mike Leigh films in that statement ;) ) so they will tend to be like that. And how many of us have gripes with the films for dropping magic in favour of action? That's what would happen if we dropped The Hobbit from the Legendarium and just relied on the bare facts about the story.

If PJ made the film and had to change the 'tone' to fit in with the tone of the LotR films then it isn't the fault of The Hobbit. Those who have read The Hobbit before the films will retain their original impressions, and I daresay there are very few people who found any difficulty in making the transition from The Hobbit to LotR.

I wasn't going to argue any further...Next birthday davem's presentses will be a nice set of wooden spoons. :p ;)

davem

08-22-2005, 03:27 PM

There are already Cockney Orcs in his LotR films so Cockney trolls won't be any problem. And I can easily see him turn the 'Tra-la-la-lallying' into a more sinister, dark form of Elvish humour.

And I'm sure he'll do the same with their talking purse & with Beorn's animals, walking on their hind legs & carrying plates :p

But to get serious for a moment. Letter 19 (from Dec 1937 - after the completion & publication of TH):

I think it is plain that ...a sequel or successor to The Hobbit is called for. I promise to give this thought & attention. But I am sure you will sympathise when I say that the construction of elaborate & consistent mythology (& two languages) rather occupies the mind, & the Silmarils are in my heart....Mr Baggins began as a comic tale among conventional & inconsistent Grimm's fairy-tale dwarves, & got drawn into the edge of it...And what more can Hobbits do? They can be comic, but their comedy is suburban unless it is set against things more elemental.

1:'But I am sure you will sympathise when I say that the construction of elaborate & consistent mythology (& two languages) rather occupies the mind, & the Silmarils are in my heart.'

This 'but' is significant - Tolkien is drawing a very clear, precise, distinction between TH & the Silmarillion. He is stating quite clearly that he will give thought to a sequel to TH, but that he'd rather concentrate on The Sil.

2:'Mr Baggins began as a comic tale among conventional & inconsistent Grimm's fairy-tale dwarves, & got drawn into the edge of it...'

Again, confirmation that TH was not written as part of The Sil - the Dwarves are not his 'Naugrim' but have their origin in the Grimm's tales. TH may have 'got drawn into the edge of' the Legendarium but Tolkien is clearly stating here that he did not consider it to be part of it - it 'is on the edge of it' - which is pretty much what I'm saying here.

3:And what more can Hobbits do? They can be comic, but their comedy is suburban unless it is set against things more elemental.'

The Hobbits of TH couldn't do any more- because the 'Hobbits' of TH are not the Hobbits of LotR - they do not have the depth, or complexity. or spiritual potential of the Hobbits of the later work.

If Tolkien had followed his heart there would have been no sequel to TH & TH would not have been connected with The Sil - even if that work had seen publication - anymore than Roverandom is connected in readers mind's with The Sil. It is only the existence of LotR which leads people to think of TH as part of the Legendarium - not anything in TH per se.

Lalwendë

08-22-2005, 03:51 PM

Tolkien also says in that letter that Mr Baggins 'got drawn into the edge of it' - so Tolkien is acknowledging that The Hobbit has now become a part of his Legendarium.

If Tolkien had followed his heart there would have been no sequel to TH & TH would not have been connected with The Sil - even if that work had seen publication - anymore than Roverandom is connected in readers mind's with The Sil.

And so if Tolkien had followed his heart and not produced a sequel what does that leave us with? No LotR. And The Sil languishing in the private papers of the descendants of an Oxford professor?

It is only the existence of LotR which leads people to think of TH as part of the Legendarium - not anything in TH per se.

This misses the point about where each work 'sits' - the Legendarium is a journey (much as LotR is a journey) with many stopping off points; it includes a multitude of styles, even of genres, it is diverse, and that is why readers are quite content to include The Hobbit.

Mister Underhill

08-22-2005, 05:09 PM

I'm not sure how that's relevant. There are lots of true things which are not easily explicable to schoolchildren. It's relevant when you accuse one side of making convoluted explanations while simultaneously implying that your own is not.
The 'historical' references in TH are few & are only there - as Tolkien stated - to give a sense of historical 'depth'.They serve much the same function in LotR. So? Again, I'd offer Anderson's Annotated Hobbit & HoMe 6 as proof of that.You'll have to do better than "HoME 6" to support your argument here. I do not, alas, own a copy of the Annotated Hobbit, and so cannot answer you there.

But in the meantime, I would point out that the character of Bilbo, and his role as a writer in and of Middle-earth, was important enough that Tolkien attributed to him the translation of the Silmarillion. I'll also add this, from Christopher Tolkien: But beyond the difficulties and the obscurities [of the textual history of the Silmarillion], what is certain and very evident is that for the begetter of Middle-earth and Valinor there was a deep coherence and vital interrelation between all its times, places, and beings, whatever the literary modes, and however protean some parts of the conception might seem when viewed over a long lifetime.

[...]the author's vision of his own vision underwent a continual slow shifting, shedding and enlarging: only in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings did parts of it emerge to become fixed in print, in his own lifetime.An interesting point, that last -- that the only truly "fixed" points of Silmarillion lore are those published in two books, one of which you seek to exclude.

And how many of us have gripes with the films for dropping magic in favour of action? That's what would happen if we dropped The Hobbit from the Legendarium and just relied on the bare facts about the story.Hear, hear!
The Hobbits of TH couldn't do any more- because the 'Hobbits' of TH are not the Hobbits of LotR - they do not have the depth, or complexity. or spiritual potential of the Hobbits of the later work.Balderdash. Show me how the hobbits of TH are not the hobbits of LotR.

You're also ignoring Tolkien's later statements to the effect that Bilbo's intrusion into the legendarium was a fortuitous accident, and, indeed, his reservations about publishing the Silmarillion at all. Why? "No hobbits!"

If anything, in a grouping of TH, LotR, and The Sil, it's usually the Sil (in the forms in which it exists) which is the odd man out, the one that "doesn't fit", as Lalwendë has already noted.

You're thinking of the Sil as a coherent and fixed work -- but early editions of TH referred to the (then) Sil "Gnomes" instead of the later "Elves". The Sil legends were constantly in flux throughout Tolkien's lifetime. Therefore, there never really was a fixed "legendarium" for Tolkien to integrate TH into. Each work acted and reacted on all the other works, until two became (relatively) fixed by publication: TH and LotR.

davem

08-23-2005, 01:50 AM

They serve much the same function in LotR. So?

No they don't the relationship of lotR to the Sil is much more complex. LotR is the culmination of the whole Legndarium.

Balderdash. Show me how the hobbits of TH are not the hobbits of LotR.

The only Hobbit we see in TH is Bilbo. Bilbo in TH is a typical fairy creture. The complex social structure of Hobbit society only comes in with LotR. Its inly in LotR that Hobbits become 'humanised'.

Sorry, but in 1937 Tolkien refers to TH as 'peripheral'. Over 25 years later, in 1964 (letter 257) he says the same.

No time.

HerenIstarion

08-23-2005, 02:24 AM

The complex social structure of Hobbit society only comes in with LotR

Those three I've met in a bar on page one were Hobbiton realtors, or so it seems...

He had arrived back in the middle of an auction! There was a large notice in black and red hung on the gate, stating that on June the Twenty-second Messrs. Grubb, Grubb, and Burrowes would sell by auction the effects of the late Bilbo Baggins Esquire, of Bag-End, Underhill, Hobbiton. Sale to commence at ten o'clock sharp. It was now nearly lunch-time, and most of the things had already been sold, for various prices from next to nothing to old songs (as is not unusual at auctions). Bilbo's cousins the Sackville-Bagginses were, in fact, busy measuring his rooms to see if their own furniture would fit. In short Bilbo was "Presumed Dead," and not everybody that said so was sorry to find the presumption wrong.
The return of Mr. Bilbo Baggins created quite a disturbance, both under the Hill and over the Hill, and across the Water; it was a great deal more than a nine days' wonder. The legal bother, indeed, lasted for years.

The Saucepan Man

08-23-2005, 03:43 AM

davem

08-23-2005, 05:51 AM

It's relevant when you accuse one side of making convoluted explanations while simultaneously implying that your own is not.

My own position is not 'convoluted' at all. I'm saying the style, mood, tone, the races & even individual characters in TH do not 'fit' with the rest of the Legendarium, & I've given my reasons for that.

An interesting point, that last -- that the only truly "fixed" points of Silmarillion lore are those published in two books, one of which you seek to exclude.

I think its clear from the context that CT is refering not to TH as such but to the references to the Legendarium it contains.

If anything, in a grouping of TH, LotR, and The Sil, it's usually the Sil (in the forms in which it exists) which is the odd man out, the one that "doesn't fit", as Lalwendë has already noted.

How can The Sil not 'fit' when it was first. LotR does fit perfectly the mood & tone of the Sil writings - only TH does not.

You're also ignoring Tolkien's later statements to the effect that Bilbo's intrusion into the legendarium was a fortuitous accident, and, indeed, his reservations about publishing the Silmarillion at all. Why? "No hobbits!"

And you're ignoring Tolkien's clear statements about the work being 'peripheral' to the Legendarium in the Letters which I qouted.

Look, we can both bounce quotes from the letters & writings back & forth & get nowhere because Tolkien contradicted himself (never realising that his comments in his letters would be taken as definitive statements). Letters 19 :
I think it is plain that ...a sequel or successor to The Hobbit is called for. I promise to give this thought & attention. But I am sure you will sympathise when I say that the construction of elaborate & consistent mythology (& two languages) rather occupies the mind, & the Silmarils are in my heart....Mr Baggins began as a comic tale among conventional & inconsistent Grimm's fairy-tale dwarves, & got drawn into the edge of it...And what more can Hobbits do? They can be comic, but their comedy is suburban unless it is set against things more elemental.

& 257

Even so it (TH) could really stand quite apart, except for the references (quite unneccessary, though they give an impression of historical depth) to the Fall of Gondolin. Letter 257.

Clearly imply it is not part of the Legendarium in the way The Sil writings & LotR are. But the Letter to Milton Waldman seem to imply the opposite. What we are left with are the texts themselves & the question of whether the individual texts are consistent with each other the only one that isn't is TH, for the reasons I've given.

H-I Sorry, but that's just a satyrical dig at lawyers - it doesn't show a complex social structure.

Lalwendë

08-23-2005, 06:15 AM

I'm going to be hypocritical. ;) Just five minutes ago I told davem I wasn't going to be arguing any more today abut this. But then I looked at Christopher Tolkien's introduction to the Sil:

A complete consistency (either within the compass of The Silmarillion itself or between The Silmarillion and other published writings of my father's) is not to be looked for, and could only be achieved, if at all, at heavy and needless cost.

Christopher Tolkien too notes how the pursuit of consistency would have a high cost. Dropping The Hobbit is too high a price to pay for me, as consistency is not half as attractive as is diversity within the legendarium.

HerenIstarion

08-23-2005, 06:19 AM

Gosh, davem, even as 'satirical dig', the whole paragraph is the on Angband of a textual evidence of 'social complexity' you seem denying the Hobbit whatsoever!

Would there be LoTR's 'heir and eight signatures in red ink' etc if not for messers. Grubb, Grubb and Burrowes?

(Funny aside fact: Gondolin is mentioned in LoTR 6 times. Gondolin is mentioned in TH 6 times)

But on the whole argument seems to go the way of 'which is more important - the egg or the hen' questions. Yes, without a hen there would be no egg, and hen is much more complex and beautiful and feathery and beady-eyed than egg may ever be, on account of not having eyes and feathers at all, but they are both part of the same circle, and one proceeds from another.

Silmarillion was a beautiful hen, and it laid an egg, which is the Hobbit. I saw an egg, and out of it hatched a cockerel the LoTR is, and I was glad to see both, for the egg had a pearly shell, and the cockerel's song brought me joy, and I went and enquired upon egg's origin, and found the hen. Hen was beautiful in her own right, but I would not learn about her if she hasn’t laid an egg. Poultry keeper (that is, Tolkien) was proud of his hen, but when he discovered an egg one morning, he thought it was not his hen's at all, for A) she laid it over the night, B) he was sure his hen will never lay eggs, but after few days, observing peculiar markings on the shell and its hue, he saw it was indeed egg of his hen.

Now stop quoting his notes of the first few days when he thought the egg was stealthily laid by some kind of cuckoo, and take a look at a cockerel hatched from it, or dare tell me again that cockerels are born directly from hens and eggs are not involved there somewhere in between :p

mark12_30

08-23-2005, 07:12 AM

To change the subject ( :rolleyes: ), I found the following comment by Kuruharan on another thread (Melkor's depiction by artists: Flawed? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=407869#post407869)) interesting in this context:

Originally Posted by Kuruharan
(It is kind of hard to disagree with how Tolkien drew Smaug in my own view)

Do we include Tolkien's own drawings and paintings of the peoples and locations of Middle-earth within "Middle-earth Canon"? It seems to me that they clearly fall within the third option on the poll, which refers to his "ideas" being included. Which would mean that any concept of Middle-earth which contradicted any of Tolkien's own illustrations would be non-canonical.

I certainly do include Tolkien's illustrations as canon; with the caveat that he preferred Pauline Baynes' illustrations to his own, in style and spirit (so to speak.) He seemed to enjoy illustrating without feeling that he had mastered the art of it. I guess the way I see it is that the concepts presented in his artwork are canonical, even if one feels that he didn't quite express that concept as well as another artist might have.

Prime example: in the illustration of the front hall of Bag End-- Bilbo quite clearly has normally-proportioned feet. (Hildrebrants, you missed the boat on that one, completely.)

I very much appreciate the artists who took Tolkien's basic design or sketch or visual concept, and added detail and polish. For instance, Nasmith's "The Last Sight" (http://img-fan.theonering.net/rolozo/images/nasmith/lastsight.jpg) of Hobbiton in the dark is a stunning makeover of Tolkien's original "The Hill".

Also interesting to note that in "The Last Sight", the hobbits have normally proportioned feet. Well done, Nasmith.

Bêthberry

08-23-2005, 07:22 AM

To change the subject ( :rolleyes: ), I found the following comment by Kuruharan on another thread (Melkor's depiction by artists: Flawed? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=407869#post407869)) interesting in this context:

Do we include Tolkien's own drawings and paintings of the peoples and locations of Middle-earth within "Middle-earth Canon"? It seems to me that they clearly fall within the third option on the poll, which refers to his "ideas" being included. Which would mean that any concept of Middle-earth which contradicted any of Tolkien's own illustrations would be non-canonical.

You know, I think SpM is on to something here. I believe that in terms of art, the relevant word used to refer to an artist's work is ... oeuvre rather than canon.

And, in fact, good old dictionary.com says

A work of art.
The sum of the lifework of an artist, writer, or composer.

Perhaps we should jettison this word 'canon' rather than any part of the, ah, oeuvre? :p

Particularly in respect of Tolkien's view of the Machine. ;)

davem

08-23-2005, 08:10 AM

Gosh, davem, even as 'satyrical dig', the whole paragraph is the on Angband of a textual evidence of 'social complexity' you seem denying the Hobbit whatsoever!

But I think its obvious that Tolkien had not constructed the kind of complex social structure you're talking about for the Shire at that time - it only comes into being with LotR. Any 'social complexity' to be found in that episode is actually the social complexity of our world transferred to the world of Faerie.

Mister Underhill

08-23-2005, 09:33 AM

Bilbo in TH is a typical fairy creture. I'd say you couldn't be more wrong about this. Bilbo is our mediator in the story, the one who we can identify with, really the most humdrum, human character in the whole fantastic world he inhabits.LotR does fit perfectly the mood & tone of the Sil writings - only TH does not.And you can't see that this is your opinion rather than an objective fact?

"Peripheral" is a long way from "nothing to do with Middle-earth" -- do you concede at least that TH takes place in Middle-earth? Even if you don't I give up. For if you are bound and determined to exclude The Hobbit from your conception of the Legendarium, it is your Middle-earth that is diminished, not mine -- a fruitless victory indeed, I should think. And little more than an intellectual exercise, I might add, since you in fact cannot conceive of a M-e canon in which TH does not exist.

It is Flieger's children that I really feel sorry for. Imagine all the richness that is lost to them. Bilbo's past history and friendship with Gandalf that informs the opening chapters of LotR. The encounter with the stone trolls -- confusing. The moon-letters that prefigure the Gates of Moria -- unknown. The whole history of the Riddle Game, and of Sting, and of Bilbo's mithril shirt -- only guessed at. Frodo's conversation in Rivendell with Glóin about Lonely Mountain and what has become of the members of Bilbo's party -- shorn of color and meaning. Geez, a whole layer of subtext to Gimli and Legolas's relationship -- sacrificed to intellectual pretension. The story of the finding of the Ring, the central element in what you consider to be the culmination of the Sil, available only in bare outline. And on and on. A Middle-earth without The Hobbit is impoverished by its absence. Good thing any future davem progeny will have Lalwendë around to see that they are not so deprived!

It's only quite a little book in a wide world after all, but thank goodness for it.

obloquy

08-23-2005, 09:41 AM

Gosh, davem, even as 'satyrical dig', the whole paragraph is the on Angband of a textual evidence of 'social complexity' you seem denying the Hobbit whatsoever!

Would there be LoTR's 'heir and eight signature in red ink' etc if not for messers Grubb, Grubb and Burrowes?

(funny aside fact: Gondolin is mentioned in LoTR 6 times. Gondolin is mentioned in TH 6 times)

But on the whole argument seems to go the way of 'which is more important - the egg or the hen' questions. Yes, without a hen there would be no egg, and hen is much more complex and beautiful and feathery and beady-eyed than egg may ever be, on account of not having eyes and feathers at all, but they are both part of the same circle, and one proceeds from another.

Silmarillion was a beatiful hen, and it lay an egg, which is the Hobbit. I saw an egg, and out of it hatched a cockerel the LoTR is, and I was glad to see both, for the egg had a pearly shell, and the cockerel's song brought me joy, and I went and enquired upon egg's origin, and found the hen. Hen was beautiful in her own right, but I would not learn about her if she haven't laid an egg. Poultry keeper (that is, Tolkien) was proud of his hen, but when he discovered an egg one morning, he thought it was not his hen's at all, for A) she laid it over the night, B) he was sure his hen will never lay eggs, but after few days, observing peculiar markings on the shell and and its hue, he saw it was indeed egg of his hen.

Now stop quoting his notes of the first few days when he thought the egg was stealthily laid by some kind of cuckoo, and take a look at a cockerel hatched from it, or dare tell me again that cockerels are born directly from hens and eggs are not involved there somewhere in between :p

This is an amazing post. I'd rep you, but I need to "spread it around" first.

Bêthberry

08-23-2005, 10:25 AM

LotR is the culmination of the whole Legndarium.

. . . .

But I think its obvious that Tolkien had not constructed the kind of complex social structure you're talking about for the Shire at that time - it only comes into being with LotR.

Good thing any future davem progeny will have Lalwendë around to see that they are not so deprived!

If we are going to discuss progeny here, Mr. U, I suggest that we point out that among all the gods and goddesses it was only Athena who sprang forth fully developed from Numero Uno's mind. There are other varieties of procreation and development and to limit our definition to that of Athena alone is to deny the whole range of ways that, well, things happen.

Would LotR have come about, Athena like, had Tolkien not first written TH? What odds and what objective facts would prove that possibility?

Because I'm both busy this morning and a lazy git, I will copy something from another thread which I think is relevant here.

Many of us come to it [LotR] first for the adventure and the action, but something draws us backto LotR. Or perhaps it is our delight in hobbits that keeps us glued. Or we are entranced by the ways of the elves. Then, something grows on us, something that perhaps develops at the expense of that initial experience, but which could not be possible without that first experience. This seems to be a history for many of us, that we began reading LotR one way, but were drawn back, and came to read it other ways.

from post #158, What Breaks the Enchatment? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=393156#post393156)

Because we can end up in places different from where we started out, does that mean we discount the importance of what set us out in the first place?

davem

08-23-2005, 11:26 AM

[QUOTE]What is a hobbit? hobbits need some description nowadays, since they have become rare and shy of the Big People, as they call us .... They are (or were) a little people, about half our height, and smaller than the bearded Dwarves. Hobbits have no beards. There is little or no magic about them, except the ordinary everyday sort which helps them to disappear quietly and quickly when large stupid folk like you and me come blundering along, making a noise like elephants which they can hear a mile off. They are inclined to be fat in the stomach; they dress in bright colours (chiefly green and yellow); wear no shoes, because their feet grow natural leathery soles and thick warm brown hair like the stuff on their heads (which is curly); have long clever brown fingers, goodnatured faces, and laugh deep fruity laughs (especially after dinner, which they have twice a day when they can get it).I'd say you couldn't be more wrong about this. Bilbo is our mediator in the story, the one who we can identify with, really the most humdrum, human character in the whole fantastic world he inhabits.

I won't cite every single instance in TH of Hobbits being described as a different species from us humans, but there are plenty of them. I think you're reading the Hobbits of LotR back into TH & seeing stuff that isn't there.

"Peripheral" is a long way from "nothing to do with Middle-earth" -- do you concede at least that TH takes place in Middle-earth? Even if you don't I give up. For if you are bound and determined to exclude The Hobbit from your conception of the Legendarium, it is your Middle-earth that is diminished, not mine -- a fruitless victory indeed, I should think. And little more than an intellectual exercise, I might add, since you in fact cannot conceive of a M-e canon in which TH does not exist.

Its not that far from it. I said in an earlier post that TH has the form of a kind of 'fantasia' on Middle-earth. It certainly doesn't take place in the same Middle-earth as LotR - apart from the basic geography being similar.

It is Flieger's children that I really feel sorry for. Imagine all the richness that is lost to them. Bilbo's past history and friendship with Gandalf that informs the opening chapters of LotR. The encounter with the stone trolls -- confusing. The moon-letters that prefigure the Gates of Moria -- unknown. The whole history of the Riddle Game, and of Sting, and of Bilbo's mithril shirt -- only guessed at. Frodo's conversation in Rivendell with Glóin about Lonely Mountain and what has become of the members of Bilbo's party -- shorn of color and meaning. Geez, a whole layer of subtext to Gimli and Legolas's relationship -- sacrificed to intellectual pretension. The story of the finding of the Ring, the central element in what you consider to be the culmination of the Sil, available only in bare outline. And on and on. A Middle-earth without The Hobbit is impoverished by its absence.

I see that again, no-one is actually listening to me. I don't want to deprive anyone of TH. I love TH. Its a question of whether it belongs in the Legendarium, on equal terms with LotR & the Sil writings.

It does mean we will read LotR in a different way. Everything you give from TH as 'necessary' to an understanding of LotR, can be countered by things in it which will cause confusion & perhaps break the spell - the Trolls, the 'Elves of Rivendell', Beorn's animals. The only way you seem to be able to account for them is by some wild theory that Bilbo's account was exagerated to such an extent that in large part what he says is completely wrong & untrustworthy.

The general argument seems to be that because LotR began as a sequel to TH, makes use (only in reference though) to the geography of TH & is referred to in it then TH must be included.

All I see (& maybe I'm wrong here) is people wanting to defend poor little Bilbo from the nasty man who wants to evict him from his home. It seems like from my first suggestion everyone has reacted by saying 'Whoa! I don't like that idea, so I'm going to attack it'. And to be honest, that was my initial reaction on hearing Flieger's statements. However, being that she is one of the world's greatest Tolkien scholars & gave reasoned arguments, I decided to calmly step back & look at what she was saying about TH not fitting into the Legendarium - for all the reasons I've given, & particularly in the light of The Fairy Stories essay, both what Tolkien says in it & the fact, & significance, of when he wrote it. The conclusion I came to was that inclusion of TH into the Legendarium causes far more problems than it solves.

Because we can end up in places different from where we started out, does that mean we discount the importance of what set us out in the first place?

I'm not discounting the importance of TH. I'm just saying it belongs outside the Legendarium.

The Saucepan Man

08-23-2005, 11:45 AM

It certainly doesn't take place in the same Middle-earth as LotR - apart from the basic geography being similar. (emphasis added)This must be some strange use of the word "similar" that I have not encountered before. Either that or you meant to type "identical" and hit the wrong keys. ;)

Of course The Hobbit takes place in the same Middle-earth as LotR. The characters and events of LotR tell us so. :rolleyes:

The general argument seems to be that because LotR began as a sequel to TH, makes use (only in reference though) to the geography of TH & is referred to in it then TH must be included.Seems pretty watertight to me. You, on the other hand, have only offered in evidence the different style and mood to support excluding it.

davem

08-23-2005, 12:10 PM

This must be some strange use of the word "similar" that I have not encountered before. Either that or you meant to type "identical" and hit the wrong keys.

No - the geography is similar - as CT in HoMe 6 & Douglas Anderson in Annotated Hobbit both point out - the distances & timescale for the respective journeys given in TH do not match those of LotR - this is due to different geography.

Seems pretty watertight to me. You, on the other hand, have only offered in evidence the different style and mood to support excluding it.

No - I offered the differences in races - Trolls, Elves & Dwarves (as Tolkien said they are based on Grimm not in his own Naugrim. I also offered out of place objects & creatures like the Troll's purse & Beorn's animals

The Saucepan Man

08-23-2005, 12:23 PM

No - I offered the differences in races - Trolls, Elves & Dwarves (as Tolkien said they are based on Grimm not in his own Naugrim. I also offered out of place objects & creatures like the Troll's purse & Beorn's animalsThey are no more out of place than the fox in the Shire.

Mister Underhill

08-23-2005, 12:42 PM

The general argument seems to be that because LotR began as a sequel to TH, makes use (only in reference though) to the geography of TH & is referred to in it then TH must be included.Your general argument seems to be to exclude TH based on your own (and Flieger's) personal taste over all contrary evidence, including references too numerous to mention to TH in LotR as a companion text.

Trolls: The translator conceit allows that various names are normalized into English forms in LotR, and that "Some attempt has been made to represent [the varieties of tongues and dialects spoken by various races] by variations in the kind of English used". Dialects and English names are chalked up to translation by Tolkien himself. Does the normalization of "Galpsi" to "Gamgee" really ruin the magic for you?

Beorn's animals: Nix on Beorn's animals, but okay on talking eagles, werewolves, Telvido, Shadowfax, Queen Beruthiel's Cats, Huan, Ents, huorns, and for that matter, talking swords in the Sil writings? I don't see the problem.

Tra-la-la-lallying Elves: You don't dig the tra-la-lally. Others do, or at least don't have a problem with it. Your opinion is far from conclusive evidence on this matter.

Does this summarize the main "problems" you see TH causing? While you're at it, why don't you tell me which of the "Sil writings" make the cut for the Legendarium and which ones do not.

EDIT: Cross-posted with SPM, who makes some of the same arguments in fewer words. :)

davem

08-23-2005, 12:54 PM

They are no more out of place than the fox in the Shire.

I think they are far more out if place - not out of place in TH as a story set in its own little world - but certainly out of place if TH is placed in the Legendarium.

What interests me in this debate is that when I'm challenged on anything I say & can offer proof & evidence for it that's never acknowledged - like your point on the 'exact' match between the geography of TH & LotR - are you going to acknowledge that what I said about the geography of TH & LotR being only similar was correct?

Or when I said that the name 'William' for a Troll was wrong, as was the way they spoke - people argue 'Well, we don't know that Trolls in the rest of the Legendarium didn't speak that way or have names like William.' When I then go on & quote from a letter of Tolkien's in which he states that he regretted using the name William or having them say such things as 'Poor little blighter' all those who argued against me suddenly change the subject & just carry on blithely accusing me of not offering any evidence for what I'm saying.

Again, this accusation that I've only cited 'mood & tone' has been repeated ad infinitum, & I've had to respond each time that I've also given examples of the difference between the Elves, Dwarves, Trolls & Hobbits, & the presence of talking purses & animals walking on their hind legs carrying plates, etc. The wrong accusations get repeated, so I'm forced to repeat myself.

Beorn's animals: Nix on Beorn's animals, but okay on talking eagles, werewolves, Telvido, Shadowfax, Queen Beruthiel's Cats, Huan, Ents, huorns, and for that matter, talking swords in the Sil writings? I don't see the problem.

Beorn's animals aren't Maiar - they're creatures of fairy story - which is what TH was written as. I don't recall Shadowfax or Beruthiel's cat's walking on their hind legs & carrying plates - or anything remotely similar. Ents & Huorns are a seperate species. Turin's talking sword is an interesting question, but not relevant as far as I can see - its never made clear whether that 'voice' was only heard in Turin's mind for one thing. Its also a not uncommon idea in mythology. But none of this answers the central question - TH was not written to be part of the Legendarium (as LotR was) so should it be included?

Tra-la-la-lallying Elves: You don't dig the tra-la-lally. Others do, or at least don't have a problem with it. Your opinion is far from conclusive evidence on this matter.

I have no problem with them in TH - I like them in TH - but they don't belong in the Legendarium.

Does this summarize the main "problems" you see TH causing? While you're at it, why don't you tell me which of the "Sil writings" make the cut for the Legendarium and which ones do not.

What belongs in the Sil are those writings which conform to it, in mood, tone & consistency.

Bêthberry

08-23-2005, 01:20 PM

I'm not discounting the importance of TH. I'm just saying it belongs outside the Legendarium.

And I am suggesting that your reasons for saying it belongs outside the Legendarium are based on a faulty assumption that only linear, logically consistent lines are meaningful in literary creation. TH was the start of something. That something might have ended up somewhat different from its genesis, but to say that TH does not belong with or 'inside' the Legendarium is to force a particular form of relationship on the works, one which denies or overlooks or denigrates the illogic nature of literary creation. It also assumes that you can fully and completely identify "a Legendarium", which is also false. I have suggested this before and Mr. Underhill has also pointed it out. "The Legendarium" existed only as a concept in Tolkien's mind. He never wrote a definitive one. And it is recreated only in the reader's mind.

What belongs in the Sil are those writings which conform to it, in mood, tone & consistency.

It does not exist as an objective standard, nor as a logically consistent theorem.

Mister Underhill

08-23-2005, 02:16 PM

What interests me in this debate is that when I'm challenged on anything I say & can offer proof & evidence for it that's never acknowledged - like your point on the 'exact' match between the geography of TH & LotR - are you going to acknowledge that what I said about the geography of TH & LotR being only similar was correct? Ah, you have been known to sidestep a few issues yourself, sir. As to this geography question, you again fail to give the full context. The present text of The Hobbit, deriving from corrections made in 1965 and first published in 1966, here introduces an element from The Lord of the Rings but fails to harmonise the two geographies. This highly uncharacteristic lapse is no doubt to be attributed simply to the haste with which my father worked under the extreme pressure imposed on him in 1965.

[...]

My father was greatly concerned to harmonise Bilbo's journey with the geography of The Lord of the Rings, especially in respect of the distance and time taken: in terms of The Lord of the Rings Gandalf, Bilbo, and the Dwarves took far too long, seeing that they were mounted (see Karen Fonstad's discussion in The Atlas of Middle-earth, p. 97). But he never brought this work to a definitive solution.I can, if you like, cite other instances in which Tolkien made efforts to harmonize TH with LotR. You would disqualify TH because of an oversight, one of the "many defects, minor and major", which Tolkien owned in the foreword to LotR?

It seems clear to me that Tolkien's many efforts to harmonize the texts shows that he did not regard TH as an unrelated sideshow that "wasn't really" set in M-e.

And speaking of sidestepping...
What belongs in the Sil are those writings which conform to it, in mood, tone & consistency.Do you, by chance, hold public office?

EDIT:
Dwarves (as Tolkien said they are based on Grimm not in his own NaugrimCan you show me, outside of reference to this letter, how the dwarves of TH are appreciably different from the dwarves of LotR? Or the Sil, for that matter, in which Dwarves as individual characters hardly appear at all?

Lalwendë

08-23-2005, 02:47 PM

For if you are bound and determined to exclude The Hobbit from your conception of the Legendarium, it is your Middle-earth that is diminished, not mine -- a fruitless victory indeed, I should think. And little more than an intellectual exercise, I might add

This is the statement of today which had me nodding most. It is indeed an intellectual exercise to seek to exclude The Hobbit; whether it is an emotional, heartfelt reaction that is being expressed here I do not know, but if it is, then I should rather take this than an intellectual exercise which actually spoils my enjoyment of Middle-earth.

And I am suggesting that your reasons for saying it belongs outside the Legendarium are based on a faulty assumption that only linear, logically consistent lines are meaningful in literary creation. TH was the start of something. That something might have ended up somewhat different from its genesis, but to say that TH does not belong with or 'inside' the Legendarium is to force a particular form of relationship on the works, one which denies or overlooks or denigrates the illogic nature of literary creation.

You have articulated the random nature of 'magic' in literature here. And I agree that this is what I think happened in the creation of first The Hobbit and then LotR. It's right that you can't force a relationship on the works. They do work together though, despite being diverse, and Tolkien appreciated the relationship, despite his perfectionism.

TH was not written to be part of the Legendarium (as LotR was) so should it be included?

LotR was not intended to be part of the legendarium, it was intended to be the sequel to the Hobbit! It then became part of the legendarium, just as the Hobbit did.

It does mean we will read LotR in a different way. Everything you give from TH as 'necessary' to an understanding of LotR, can be countered by things in it which will cause confusion & perhaps break the spell - the Trolls, the 'Elves of Rivendell', Beorn's animals. The only way you seem to be able to account for them is by some wild theory that Bilbo's account was exagerated to such an extent that in large part what he says is completely wrong & untrustworthy.

No. I had no problem whatsoever moving on from The Hobbit to LotR. Nothing struck me as odd, and I had to create no theory.

davem

08-23-2005, 03:18 PM

That something might have ended up somewhat different from its genesis, but to say that TH does not belong with or 'inside' the Legendarium is to force a particular form of relationship on the works, one which denies or overlooks or denigrates the illogic nature of literary creation. It also assumes that you can fully and completely identify "a Legendarium", which is also false.

From On Fairy Stories:

(The sub-creator) makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it what he relates is ''true': it accords with the laws of that world.[/QUOTE]

The Elves, Trolls, Dwarves, etc of TH do not accord with the 'laws' of the Legendarium. Therefore they do not belong there.

I can, if you like, cite other instances in which Tolkien made efforts to harmonize TH with LotR. You would disqualify TH because of an oversight, one of the "many defects, minor and major", which Tolkien owned in the foreword to LotR?

This is fascinating. I state that the geography of TH does not match with that of LotR. You quote a passage that confirms my statement & somehow that proves me wrong! The very effort required to make TH fit - which CT states he failed to do - shows that it was never fully or successfullly integrated - which is what I've been saying all along - though I suppose this also proves that I'm wrong as it shows I'm again right. What Tolkien realised, clearly is that the more he attempted to make TH fit the more he realised it wouldn't, so he simply gave up on it.

Can you show me, outside of reference to this letter, how the dwarves of TH are appreciably different from the dwarves of LotR? Or the Sil, for that matter, in which Dwarves as individual characters hardly appear at all?

So its ok for you to dismiss any of Tolkien's writings that don't 'suit'? You can really see the Naugrim of the First Age pulling out concealed clarinets & double bases & singing a comic song about doing the washing up? Perhaps that's how they psyched themselves up to dispatch Thingol?

They do work together though, despite being diverse, and Tolkien appreciated the relationship, despite his perfectionism.

No, Tolkien (wrongly) saw the existence of TH as a fait a compli - which is the reason for so many abortive attempts to make it fit. Also for his regret over its style & content.

LotR was not intended to be part of the legendarium, it was intended to be the sequel to the Hobbit! It then became part of the legendarium, just as the Hobbit did.

No, LotR was intended to be part of the Legendarium. The sequel to TH, the 'New Hobbit' wasn't so intended, but by the time it had become LotR it was intentionally part of the Legendarium. In short, it was only when it had broken away from the fairy story world of TH in Tolkien's mind (to the extent that he had become so uncomfortable with TH that he had to re-write Riddles in the Dark & completely change Gollum's character) & become part of the Legendarium that TH caused him so many problems & so much 'stress'. The sad thing is that because of LotR taking on that role he became dissatisfied with TH. It lost something in Tolkien's mind (hence the re-writing) because he (erroniously imo) felt it had to be put in the service of LotR. Poor Bilbo, say I..

Mister Underhill

08-23-2005, 03:43 PM

What Tolkien realised, clearly is that the more he attempted to make TH fit the more he realised it wouldn't, so he simply gave up on it. So you're saying that even though the geography of TH and LotR are in intention exactly the same, the fact that Tolkien overlooked the discrepancy makes TH "not Middle-earth"? Okay, now let's return to that Sil question and have you provide a list of the "Legitimate Sil Texts According to davem" that passes that test.

davem

08-23-2005, 04:03 PM

So you're saying that even though the geography of TH and LotR are in intention exactly the same, the fact that Tolkien overlooked the discrepancy makes TH "not Middle-earth"?

No, I'm saying they're not the same, because TH was an unconnected fairy story written for his children & 'the Silmarils were in his heart'. I'm saying that fairy story used parts of the Legendarium for background, to 'add historical depth'. That's why he had so many problems making it fit. The 'intention' you refer to arose after the fact. He felt he had to try & make it fit because rather than seeing it as a fairy story & settling for giving the 'true' account in LotR he decided that he had to incorporate the fairy story into the Legendarium as well.

Okay, now let's return to that Sil question and have you provide a list of the "Legitimate Sil Texts According to davem" that passes that test...
The Legendarium that you think TH doesn't fit into is vapor -- it doesn't exist.

I've said - all the Legendarium writings that were written as part of the Legendarium 'pass the test' - its not a fixed thing, but an evolving process - something that my 'opponents' here keep repeating without apparently understanding what it means. That doesn't include things that were not written as part of it but which Tolkien attempted to make part of it & could only do by eviscerating them & making them into something they were never meant to be. Does no-one get that the changes to TH actually spoiled it - when seen in its own right? He couldn't alter it sufficiently to make it fit the Legendarium, but he could (& did), take away its 'innocence' by putting it into the service of something greater. The changes to TH (principally the changes to Gollum in Riddles in the Dark) don't fit the spirit of TH - they're only seen as an 'improvement' when it is read in the light of LotR. All those changes did was spoil TH without (as JRRT & CT acknowledge) doing the necessary job & successfully fitting it into the Legendarium. I'd suggest a reading of the Annotated Hobbit for the original version of TH. Few objective readers would consider the changes an improvement - if it is seen, as intended, as a story in its own right.

Oh, & can I take it that you accept my point about the Dwarves?

Lalwendë

08-23-2005, 04:22 PM

He felt he had to try & make it fit because rather than seeing it as a fairy story & settling for giving the 'true' account in LotR he decided that he had to incorporate the fairy story into the Legendarium as well.

Yes, Tolkien incorporated it into the Legendarium.

I'm going to have to find you more housework to do. :p

Mister Underhill

08-23-2005, 05:10 PM

as JRRT & CT acknowledgeGotta call you out on this again. "But I should not change much." You continue to portray JRRT as disowning TH as an M-e story when the bulk of the evidence shows that he considered it an essential part of his M-e mythology.

So would you throw out all post-late-1930's work on the Sil, seeing as how it became "infected" at that point by the influence of TH, and later LotR? You say you acknowledge the evolving nature of the legendarium but for some reason refuse to admit that evolution included TH.
Oh, & can I take it that you accept my point about the Dwarves?That's a big negatory. It's like reading about the Battle of Agincourt and then deducing that humans would never come up with Saturday Night Live. It would be out of character. You don't think a dwarf ever played an instrument or sang a comic song?

Anywho, this is getting more than a little repetitive. You are welcome to your Hobbit-free legendarium as far as I'm concerned.

I'm going to have to find you more housework to do. :pLOL!

The Saucepan Man

08-23-2005, 06:31 PM

What interests me in this debate is that when I'm challenged on anything I say & can offer proof & evidence for it that's never acknowledged - like your point on the 'exact' match between the geography of TH & LotR - are you going to acknowledge that what I said about the geography of TH & LotR being only similar was correct? At the time, I was not in a position to either challenge or concede your point. Having now reviewed the discussion of the point in Karen Wyn Fonstad's Atlas of Middle-earth, I will concede "virtually identical". :p ;)

The only major discrepancy involves the distance between the rushing river and the clearing in which Bilbo met the Trolls (which Mister Underhill has addressed). Otherwise, the difference in journey time can be easily accounted for by the fact that Bilbo and the Dwarves were in unfamilar territory, low on rations and not being guided by a Ranger. That hardly seems sufficient grounds on which to base the proposition that the geographies of LotR and TH are merely "similar". They are virtually identical. Tolkien intended that they be identical and I am happy to accept them as such.

In any event, would discrepancies between LotR and Tolkien's Silm writings lead you to reject one of them? There are many discrepancies within the Silm writings (Galadriel's history, for example). Yet, it seems that you would warmly welcome all of them into the Legendarium, while leaving TH standing wretchedly at the door.

I had no problem whatsoever moving on from The Hobbit to LotR. Nothing struck me as odd, and I had to create no theory.Ditto.

Anywho, this is getting more than a little repetitive. You are welcome to your Hobbit-free legendarium as far as I'm concerned.Amen to that! :D

HerenIstarion

08-24-2005, 12:47 AM

We may cite lot of things at each other, and both sides may have their points, but the gist of the debate seems to come down to the following:

1. TH was not originally conceived by Tolkien as part of Legendarium
2. Later (and as soon as chapter 3, I'd argue, even if it was merely for 'depth'), Tolkien changed his mind and made some effort to incorporate it into Legendarium.

Both statements are true, and davem is perfectly right in pointing out clause 1 at us, but than it is a question of 'authorial intent' or 'reader's freedom' we have our noses pressed against.

I believe that 2 has supremacy over 1 in this case. davem seems to hold the opposite view, that is, 'Tolkien made a mistake in shifting his positon from 1 to 2'.

For additional support to my own view, apart from things already said, it may be stated that many things which form essential part of LoTR were born in The Hobbit: the Ring and Gollum to name the most important.

The very geography of LoTR and its much discussed discrepancies with that of the Hobbit is there at all thanks to TH. There would be no Erebor, no Dain Ironfoot and his conversation with Sauron's messanger, no Gimli in the fellowship, no Galmdring of Gondolin in Gandalf's hand on the bridge in Khazad-dûm, no elated legend of Azog and Thrain if some things were not originally parts of the Hobbit.

True, it is not essential to have read the Hobbit to understand and enjoy LoTR, but I think LotR would be poorer if there were no TH (leaving aside the obvious fact there would be no LoTR at all if there were no TH)

The very choice of names for the dwarves and Gandalf points in opposite direction - TH was less of a fairy tale from it's very beginning, than, say, Roverandom. Fantasia? Let it be termed so, but if fantasia takes part there, it is part of it.

Apart from all elaborate explanations we keep coming up with to davem's dissatisfaction :p , the most perfect one comes out of LoTR itself (I doubt it was conciously put in there, but it is the best):

It became a fireside-story for young hobbits; and eventually Mad Baggins, who used to vanish with a bang and a flash and reappear with bags of jewels and gold, became a favourite character of legend and lived on long after all the true events were forgotten.

Do you expect much of 'Mad Baggins' type of story? Following Sam, I can imagine fire-side storyteller groping for Troll-names and coming out with Bill. (You may point out that 'both TH and LoTR were written down as parts of the Red Book', and thus disarm this theory, but than, I'll retreat back to authorship: it is Mad Baggins who wrote down his own authobiography, not a college of writers including half-transparent Ring-bearer (who have 'grown wise' according to a Maia), half-elven wiseman and another Maia). Besides, if you do point that out, you lose - if they both were parts of the same imaginary book, they are both parts of ME :p

Yet, kidding apart, the real question is, did Tolkien make a mistake? However I may respect davem (and Flieger, whose work was introduced to my attention and brought me much enjoyement thanks to aforesaid davem), I believe they are making a mistake, not Tolkien :)

As I never was one for democracy in matters of opinion (that is, majority does not have casting vote here), I'm forced to conclude that this particular debate comes to a draw and both sides stand unconvinced, though.

davem

08-24-2005, 01:57 AM

Ok - I'm happy to leave things here. If nothing else I've exposed the serious 'differences' between TH & LotR/The Sil writings, & shown how much has to be put down to Bilbo's 'excentircity'. H-i's 'Mad Baggins' account simply confirms to me that at best TH can be seen as a Hobbit 'fairy story' (with its basis in actual events long left behind). A fairy story within Middle-earth - yet because of that I cannot see how we can depend on what we find there - however charmed we might be by it.

That's my last word - others can have the last last word if they like.

The Saucepan Man

08-24-2005, 03:46 AM

That's my last word - others can have the last last word if they like.OK then. ;)

If nothing else I've exposed the serious 'differences' between TH & LotR/The Sil writings, & shown how much has to be put down to Bilbo's 'excentircity'.You see, that's how this whole debate started - with my post (in response to obloquy) stating how I did not see the need to explain the more whimsical aspects of The Hobbit by reference to eccentricity or exaggeration on Bilbo's part. The tone is different, but I am happy to accept Bilbo's tale as a pretty much accurate account of his adventure. I am happy to accept talking purses in a world of talking swords and Silent Watchers. I am happy to accept Beorn's animals in a world of sentient foxes, spiders and (non-Maia, in my view) eagles. And I am happy to accept Stone Giants in a world of Orcs and Trolls. I don't see any problem with merry-making Elves and Dwarves. They cannot be serious and noble/dour and gritty all of the time. I am content to put the Troll's names down to translation and the minor discrepancies in the geography (so minor as to escape my attention without them being pointed out) don't really bother me.

Now, that may just be me being nostalgic. If that's the case, then so be it. It works for me. I would rather have the magic of enchantment over the realism of cold academic debate any day.

And the same goes for Balrog's wings and pointy Elvish ears ... :D