Canon: what ARE we babbling about?

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

This thread is made following mark 12:30's bidding.

Bidding! Nay, gentle H-I, your offer was kind and generous, and happily accepted. Thank you. I am grateful.

[Encaitare]

I'm not really sure what I consider canon, so I am not voting just yet. But I just wanted to say I'm glad this has at last been poll-itized. (And also that option 5 makes me giggle, ie: "The Barrow-Wight told me it's canon, so it must be so!")

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Encaitare

I'm not really sure what I consider canon, so I am not voting just yet. But I just wanted to say I'm glad this has at last been poll-itized. (And also that option 5 makes me giggle, ie: "The Barrow-Wight told me it's canon, so it must be so!")

I'd be surprised if the Wight himself woudn't defer to Mister Underhill, lindil, and Sharku...

[obloquy]

The Canon is built from all extant writings. It contains all concepts that do not conflict with either tone or letter of the rest of the canon: for example, we cannot consider The Hobbit strictly canonical due to anomalies (or abandoned ideas). With regard to The Hobbit, it is important to view the story as an embellished or fanciful adventure novel from Bilbo's perspective. When a conflict does arise, the latest writing rules, unless the concepts presented therein are underdeveloped to the point that they create irreconcilable holes in the established mythos. In which case we must consider the ideas to be possible alternatives and investigate the ramifications of accepting them as canonical.



IMO

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by obloquy

With regard to The Hobbit, it is important to view the story as an embellished or fanciful adventure novel from Bilbo's perspective.

Why? I have never gone along with this idea that Bilbo must have exagerrated the tale of his adventure. Why can we not simply take it at face value (accepting, of course, the changes made to his account of his encounter with Gollum, as explained in LotR)? Why are Giants, for example, merely products of Bilbo's overactive imagination when the Stone Trolls and Dragon are clearly not? Why should we dismiss Bilbo's tale as a collection of febrile ramblings when we take the account written by Frodo and Sam as gospel? Why should Bilbo's account of his own story be considered fanciful, when his collation of Elvish history is taken as accurate?

Of course, you can view The Hobbit in that way if you wish, but it's not compulsory to do so. Nor is it unreasonable to interpret it as a faithful account.

As for the poll, Canon is defined in the dictionary (in this context) as:

... the recognised genuine works of a particular author; a list of these.

Strictly speaking, that includes only the works which Tolkien himself completed and which were published in his lifetime. At a stretch, it might also include his unfinished tales as per the state that they were in at the time of his death and as subsequently published. But it would exclude The Silmarillion, which was edited by his son, and his letters, notes and the like.

Unfortunately, there's no option which precisely matches that, so I'll go with the "published during his lifetime" option, ie his completed works.

Edit: Actually, I'll go with the second option, although I would exclude The Silmarillion as edited/adapted by Christopher Tolkien.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

Why? I have never gone along with this idea that Bilbo must have exagerrated the tale of his adventure. Why can we not simply take it at face value (accepting, of course, the changes made to his account of his encounter with Gollum, as explained in LotR)? Why are Giants, for example, merely products of Bilbo's overactive imagination when the Stone Trolls and Dragon are clearly not? Why should we dismiss Bilbo's tale as a collection of febrile ramblings when we take the account written by Frodo and Sam as gospel? Why should Bilbo's account of his own story be considered fanciful, when his collation of Elvish history is taken as accurate?

Verlyn Flieger addressed this question at Birmingham. The problem The Hobbit presents is that it is full of incidents that don't 'fit' with the tone of the rest of the canon/Legendarium. The 'cockney' trolls, with their talking purse, the 'tra-la-la-lally' Elves, don't 'belong' in the world of LotR, let alon of the Sil. TH is much closer to a story like Roverandom - a children's story which made use of the Legendarium as background. The only way it can be made to 'fit' is to construct some quite elaborate 'explanations' - the most effective of which, I suppose, is that Tolkien the 'translator' took the contents of the Red Book relating to Bilbo & deliberately re-told them in a way suitable for children. But that begs the question 'Why do that?' Flieger said that she didn't much like The Hobbit as a story & that she didn't consider it part of the story.

Personally, I love the book, but I can see her point. Those trolls are not 'Middle-earth' trolls, the Rivendell 'Elves' have clearly strayed in from 'Goblin Feet' & don't belong in Middle-earth. I think it was Brian Rosebury who stated that The Hobbit 'changes' its tone with the appearance of Elrond - others have stated that it begins with Gollum's appearance, & certainly the story from that point becomes more serious & darker in tone. But, for all I love the book I'm coming more & more to agree with Flieger.

Now, TH is still 'canon' in the sense of being a book Tolkien wrote & published, but is it part of the Middle-earth 'canon'? Well, only if Roverandom (& Goblin feet) is. Actually, I'd say Smith has a greater claim to inclusion in the Legendarium than TH....

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

The 'cockney' trolls, with their talking purse, the 'tra-la-la-lally' Elves, don't 'belong' in the world of LotR, let alon of the Sil.

In your and Ms Flieger's opinion.

They belong in my Middle-earth.

[mark12_30]

davem, I disagree. The idea that Elrond is too high and lofty to sing Tra-La-La-Lally is like saying Fordim is too sophisticated to write satire. I just don't buy it.

Take any high-fallutin' professor and set him (or her) in circumstances that bring out their inner glee, and you get child-like behavior. What was it Sam said about Galadriel? High and far-off as a mountain, merry as any lass with daisies in her hair? If Elrond can't crack a joke or join in a drinking game, then he's as grumpy as the movies make him out to be. I don't buy it. Six thousand years old, and he's forgotten how to laugh and sing simple songs?

There's also (Tra-La-La-Lally) the fact that The Valley Song is obviously made up on the fly. For fun. Because there are dwarves to tease. I can imagine more than one elf groaning, "Egads, he wrote it down!"

On trolls: If Sam's accent can differ from Pippin's, then one neighborhood of trolls can be more cockney than another. And one race of trolls can talk while the others are mute. (I'm not convinced that Mordor-trolls aren't chatty anyway-- I think that's a PJ-ism.)

What else? Some of the early wyrms (in the Sil) had no wings. Smaug has wings. Egads, a contradiction! No. Two different kinds of dragons. Just like there were different kinds of orcs; different kinds of hobbits; different kinds of men.

THe tone of the books differ-- because Bilbo differs from Frodo, and one story differs from the other. Bilbo's expedition wasn't about the end of the old ways, departure of the elves and the passing of the third age. It was about a treasure hunt.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by obloquy

The Canon is built from all extant writings. It contains all concepts that do not conflict with either tone or letter of the rest of the canon: for example, we cannot consider The Hobbit strictly canonical due to anomalies (or abandoned ideas). With regard to The Hobbit, it is important to view the story as an embellished or fanciful adventure novel from Bilbo's perspective.

Here was the departure from the discussion of canon to the discussion of tone and conflicts.

Saucie and I disagree that The Hobbit is any less canonical because it has a more whimsical style. Bilbo is just a more whimsical hobbit. Shall we imagine what LotR would have been like had it been penned entirely by Sam? Or Pippin? But though the tone would have been quite different, the tale would not have been less "MIddle-Earth", or less from "The Perilous Realm".

Edit: On the changes to The Hobbit: I think they were brilliant. It turns the whole thing into a living tale. "I have Bilbo's *original* version that he told the dwarves! Cool!"