The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

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...

08-19-2005, 03:40 AM	#27
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	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... __________________ Gordon's alive!