Canon: what ARE we babbling about?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mr U

Which davem am I talking to? The one who thinks Authorial Intention is all, or the one who apparently stands ready to jettison a whole book and (apparently) slash whole sections of LotR even over the claims of the author, all on the basis of the opinion of some Tolkien scholar? The latter -- at least for the present -- it seems.

I don't think I said I think 'authorial intention is all'. I said in other threads that we should try to just experience the art in as pure & uncluttered a way as possible. I've never suggested 'jettisoning' TH. I said it doesn't fit, in mood, tone or feeling, with the rest of the Legendarium. It doesn't - & everyone's attempts to make it fit require some \pretty convoluted 'explanations'. 'Bilbos' tale grew in the telling' 'He was 'middle class' & the tone reflects that bias' or SpM's

Whether you dismiss parts of Bilbo's tale as fanciful or consider them merely whimsical, the point is that the events that he related occured, within your "secondary world" as part of the history of Middle-earth.

(which btw is something I said myself earlier on.)

I never suggested 'slashing whole sections of LotR' either.

Of course there are the annoying facts of the Shire, the Ring, Gollum, old fairy-tale Bilbo himself, Elrond, Gandalf, Gloin, Balin, the Beornings, the Sackville-Bagginses (Heaven forbid! Too silly by far!), etc. and so on ad infinitum with which we must contend.

No, we don't have to contend with those things at all. We just see & treat TH as at best 'secondary' M-e literature'. All that the Legendarium requires of Bilbo's story is encapsulated in LotR. TH should be seen as a M-e 'fantasia'. You're trying way too hard to keep it as a primary text, equal with LotR & The Sil writings.

Originally Posted by SPM

I would add Frodo and co's encounter with Bilbo's Stone Trolls into the mix too. Wether they were called William, Tom and Bert or Wollyam, Tzomm and Bhat matters not. They existed. Bilbo and the Dwarves encountered them. And they ended up turned to Stone. Oh, and their cache included Glamdring and Sting, both of which played their part in the War of the Ring.

Whether you dismiss parts of Bilbo's tale as fanciful or consider them merely whimsical, the point is that the events that he related occured, within your "secondary world" as part of the history of Middle-earth.

We're not talking about the events of the story but the kind of story it is. It doesn't belong in the Legendarium as a primary text. Its relation to the Legendarium is the same as that of Roverandom & the TB verses.

All I'm getting is that you guys want to keep it in for sentimental reasons. The fact that Bilbo & the Dwarves encountered three trolls, they found the swords & went to Rivendell is accepted. We're not discussing the events depicted - which are part of the Legendarium - we're talking about whether an (in parts condescending) childrens fairy story should be considered a primary text in the Legendarium.

As for the argument that the style of LotR is different from that of The Sil - this won't wash either, as there are Sil writings (the Narn & Tuor & his coming to Gondolin among others) which are in the style of LotR, & Appendix B of LotR is in the 'Annalistic' style of the Grey Annals & the Annals of Valinor etc). Only TH is out of place in terms of style, tone & mood - & the mental gymnastics required to make it 'belong' merely prove that.

I'm not saying you can't have TH. I'm saying it doesn't belong in the Legendarium. Sentimental justifications apart I don't see that anyone has offered any convincing arguments for that.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

All I'm getting is that you guys want to keep it in for sentimental reasons. The fact that Bilbo & the Dwarves encountered three trolls, they found the swords & went to Rivendell is accepted. We're not discussing the events depicted - which are part of the Legendarium - we're talking about whether an (in parts condescending) childrens fairy story should be considered a primary text in the Legendarium.

. . . .

I'm not saying you can't have TH. I'm saying it doesn't belong in the Legendarium. Sentimental justifications apart I don't see that anyone has offered any convincing arguments for that.

Congratulations, davem, for taking the thread so completely off topic. We were not discussing what belongs in the Legendarium, but what we mean by the word "canon". 'Canon' is not equivalent with "Legendarium."

From SpM to Fordim to my own posts, three of us have offerred definitions of that word in testimony to our point here--a definition which you have ignored and even studiously obfuscated.

Originally Posted by davem

TH is clearly a 'non-canonical' secondarytext, of dubious value in terms of the actualite it presents. It may be accepted by some readers as having a value to the main body of the myth & by others as being 'mere' entertainment.

I think that sums up the positions....

By the definitions offerred you cannot call it non-canonical and then say well, I meant non-Legendarium. And using the single quotation punctuation marks is a wafflish weasle bit of rhetorical legerdemain, roughly akin to having your cake and eating it too. And I am not aware that defining terms is a feature of sentimentality.

Your argument belongs in a completely different thread. I'm sure you would find yourself in less of a minority should you wish to argue it there. Although I'm not sure just what all the fuss is about.

Ideas evolve, transform. Sometimes we start out on the road without knowing where we will end. What was it T. S. Eliot said? Something to the effect of "to return from all our wanderings and know the place for the first time."

A children's tale that bore traces of Tolkien's own academic reading, lore, and languages is what got him going and what stimulated his publishers into getting him to write more. These are facts of publishing history. Maybe academics are embarassed about the significance of childish things to adults?

[Lalwendë]

So, there is Tolkien canon and Legendarium canon? (davem has been insisting on this ). From this there are certain texts which are plainly not part of the information which we have about Middle-earth - and there are those which plainly are about Middle-earth. However, I still do not accept that The Hobbit should be considered as separate from the Legendarium purely because it has a different tone and style.

Even if Tolkien himself did not think the style was coherent with the style of LotR and The Sil, it is still part of the Legendarium because it concerns plots, characters and places which we come across within other parts of the legendarium, and not just tangentially, but directly and extensively.

Many many writers have been and would be uncomfortable for certain works they have produced to be considered by scholars but nevertheless they are considered. Tolkien's own Letters do not demonstrate that he was particularly embarrassed by The Hobbit, merely that he didn't like certain aspects of it and in retrospect thought they may have been improved in some way.

The question of style and tone is now really just one of taste. The Hobbit is already out there, on release as t'were, and there isn't anything we can do about it, and as such it will inevitably be considered as part of ther Legendarium.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Maybe academics are embarassed about the significance of childish things to adults?

Too true I fear. Maybe it is one of the pitfalls of intellectualising a legendarium that is at root simply a good adventure?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Congratulations, davem, for taking the thread so completely off topic. We were not discussing what belongs in the Legendarium, but what we mean by the word "canon". 'Canon' is not equivalent with "Legendarium."

From SpM to Fordim to my own posts, three of us have offerred definitions of that word in testimony to our point here--a definition which you have ignored and even studiously obfuscated.

I think if you read Obloquy's post (no 5) you'll see where this 'canon' question arose.

There is a Middle-earth 'canon' - writings by Tolkien (& Christopher as well now) which are about Middle-earth. The question is which writings belong in it & what relevance they have. Therefore it is a question of canonicity in that sense. This thread is about what we mean when we use the term 'canon' in relation to Tolkien's writings. If we're simply going to accept the dictionary definition of 'canon' this thread is meaningless. Canon is defined (Merriam-webster) as:
a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works <the canon of great literature> Hence one can talk about the Middle-earth 'canon' (or Legendarium if you like.)

A children's tale that bore traces of Tolkien's own academic reading, lore, and languages is what got him going and what stimulated his publishers into getting him to write more. These are facts of publishing history. Maybe academics are embarassed about the significance of childish things to adults?

This is not relevant to the point I'm making - which is how or if TH is a primary text within the M-e 'canon' - or whether it actually belongs there at all.

Tolkien himself was uncomfortable with the condescending tone of TH - the knowing wink to the adults in the adults in the audience, what he called the 'pigwiggenry' (On Fairy Stories) - which is what we see in the early parts of TH/ In fact, as Flieger pointed out it was after the writing of TH that he wrote that essay. Certainly he never wrote in that 'style' again - if he had no problem with that 'tone' why not?

Originally Posted by Lalwende

Even if Tolkien himself did not think the style was coherent with the style of LotR and The Sil, it is still part of the Legendarium because it concerns plots, characters and places which we come across within other parts of the legendarium, and not just tangentially, but directly and extensively.

Its a story that makes use of the Legendarium. & which Tolkien attempted to integrate into it at a later date. Whether he succeeded or not is the question.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Its a story that makes use of the Legendarium. & which Tolkien attempted to integrate into it at a later date. Whether he succeeded or not is the question.

In this sense, it makes use of The Sil, but it does not make use of LotR, it cannot, as it caused LotR to come into being. Without The Hobbit there would be no Ring, no quest and no LotR. We would have The Sil (possibly, if it was published, but it may just as likely have remained in Tolkien's desk) but there would be no LotR and probably no massive fandom.

Considering style and tone and whether The Hobbit fits with the style and tone of LotR, it certainly does, especially in the earlier parts of the book (LotR), and in reference later on (humour continues throughout the book). LotR in itself is shifting in tone and style and at the end it again echoes The Hobbit. If anything doesn't 'fit' it might be argued that it in fact could be The Sil which is very different in tone and style not only to The Hobbit but to LotR. The difference is much more marked between LotR and The Sil than between The Hobbit and LotR. However, I do not think any of the texts ought to be separated from the Legendarium merely due to stylistic properties.

As I've already said, a dislike of tone or style is usually a matter of taste. There are many many serious readers who do not enjoy the tone of the chapters dealing with the battle for Gondor but there are more who do appreciate the change in style and for whom this does not break the enchantment.

I think that what is at the heart of this is that Flieger's enchantment was broken by The Hobbit - maybe her taste veers towards the epic and the serious but for many more readers, the whimsical also has a strong appeal, as shown in the love for Tom Bombadil. The point Flieger made about 'pigwiggenry' was a moot point, a question of taste again. There is no evidence to prove that Tolkien thought his own work was 'pigwiggenry' - in fact judging by the words he uses to describe pigwiggenry, The Hobbit is anything but that.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I think if you read Obloquy's post (no 5) you'll see where this 'canon' question arose.

There is a Middle-earth 'canon' - writings by Tolkien (& Christopher as well now) which are about Middle-earth. The question is which writings belong in it & what relevance they have. Therefore it is a question of canonicity in that sense. This thread is about what we mean when we use the term 'canon' in relation to Tolkien's writings. If we're simply going to accept the dictionary definition of 'canon' this thread is meaningless. Canon is defined (Merriam-webster) as:
a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works <the canon of great literature> Hence one can talk about the Middle-earth 'canon' (or Legendarium if you like.)

This is not relevant to the point I'm making - which is how or if TH is a primary text within the M-e 'canon' - or whether it actually belongs there at all. . . .

No, you can't blame Oblo for your pertinacity, davem, for your number of posts on the issue has long out-run his.

Of course if you wish to insist upon your own exclusive 'true meaning' of Legendarium-canon, that is of course your wont and right.

And even if you wish to include a second author--Christopher--as legitimately co-determinant with the first--and exclude works of the first author as a result of that, that, too, is your wont and right.

Yet others are free also to demur that this form of argument prioritises some texts over others on the basis of what they perceive as a faulty argument.

This is not relevant to the point I'm making - which is how or if TH is a primary text within the M-e 'canon' - or whether it actually belongs there at all.

My point is relevant. TH belongs there because,it was TH which made LoTR possible. The Hebrew Bible --or Old Testament--made the New Testament possible. There are some books contemporary with the NT which some Christians jettison as apochryphal, but Christians still include the Old Testament with their Bible.

[mark12_30]

I must admit to some surprise that after assembling the most complete poll I could, there are still options that I did not account for. Good thing Heren-Istarion included the "Else: Fill-In-The-Blank" vote.

Still, I think this all underlines the necessity of defining terms (yet again).

Perhaps we should beg Heren-Istarion to start a separate poll entitled "Which works of Tolkien should be excluded from the Legendarium." Or perhaps "Tone: the defining element or not?"

In the meantime, for this poll it would seem that davem has selected the "Else: fill in the blank" final option. True, davem?

In the meantime, Bethberry-- you did request the "Works published during the author's lifetime". I wait with baited breath wondering which selection you will choose.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

No, you can't blame Oblo for your pertinacity, davem, for your number of posts on the issue has long out-run his.

I'm not 'blaming' Oblo . I was merely pointing out the starting point of this discussion.

TH belongs there because,it was TH which made LoTR possible.

No, it was The Sil which made LotR possible. If The Sil had not existed there would have been no LotR. TH provided the reason for Tolkien beginning LotR. That reason was soon left behind & LotR became the culmination of The Sil, not the sequel to TH.

Yet others are free also to demur that this form of argument prioritises some texts over others on the basis of what they perceive as a faulty argument.

I think everyone has accepted that the tone & mood of TH is 'unique', that the Elves, Trolls, Goblins, the narrative voice & even the character of Gandalf are 'wrong' in the context of the rest of the Legendarium. The only arguments against my position seem to be 1 - Tolkien wrote TH & it makes references to The Sil & 2 - Bilbo was 'elaborating' his story & had a middle-class bias against against 'foreigners'.

Nobody has provided a convincing argument that TH fits the mood & tone of the rest of the Legendarium.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

In the meantime, Bethberry-- you did request the "Works published during the author's lifetime". I wait with baited breath wondering which selection you will choose.

Ah, Helen, I made the request in reference to all the logical possibilities that our various Downers might wish for--witness SpM's concurrence--and not out of preference to see my personal choice 'pollarised', you might say.

I'm notoriously bad at polls and multiple choice questions. I drive telephone pollsters mad asking them what their questions mean and if a really off base interpretation is the one intended because then, well, I wouldn't really have the faintest clue how to procede. Or I offer my own off base interpretation which clearly shows how my answers are going to skew the data collection.

And so, in short, I've steered clear of actually voting on many of our recent polls. I have trouble deciding which side of my toast to butter too.

I find arguments like davem's to be really rather interesting, for they tend to shatter old assumptions and offer new ways of seeing things. What indeed is 'canon'. However, I also find that the most fruitful of this sort of iconoclastic approaches are those which result in some postive understanding, something which opens up new ideas. Something which simply excludes or diminishes our understanding becomes, imho, little more than an intellectual exercise, which of course is the game that academics play.

So, I would ask two questins. How does davem's argument open up the Legendarium to a greater understanding? What does it add so we can appreciate the mythology better? And, second, how does this approach help us understand TH better? Does it break the thing in the analysis?

Originally Posted by davem

Its only when TH is taken as part of the Legendarium that it feels 'out of place'.

Well, TH gave the world hobbits. And one hobbit in particular plays rather a special role in the Legendarium as explained in LotR. There might be some differences of degree between TH hobbits and LotR hobbits, but I don't think there is a difference in kind.