Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
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:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
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.