The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

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.

08-19-2005, 12:43 PM	#38
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	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. __________________ Gordon's alive!