[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

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.

Originally Posted by Helen

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.

Originally Posted by Mr U

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.