[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

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".

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.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

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!