Canon: what ARE we babbling about?

[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.

[davem]

Helen
Ok, that might account for it, but as I said:

The only way it can be made to 'fit' is to construct some quite elaborate 'explanations'

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by davem

Helen
Ok, that might account for it, but as I said: The only way it can be made to 'fit' is to construct some quite elaborate 'explanations'

I don't see those as elaborate in the least. I think they're pretty simplistic. "Diversity." "The mountain and the squirrel had a quarrel."

I think the whole "tone" idea is overdone.

[davem]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

I don't see those as elaborate in the least. I think they're pretty simplistic.

Ok, put TH on one side. The trolls, the Elves, Elrond, all the creatures & individuals who appear in The Sil writings & in LotR are consistent in their behaviour (no trolls in Beleriand or in Moria are called Bill, Tom or Bert - & if they were we'd be shocked!). Its only in TH that their behaviour differs so extremely. Not one 'Tra-la-lally' is heard in the whole of the Legendarium apart from in TH.

I accept that in the secondary world of M-e Bilbo found the Ring more or less as described & had more or less the experiences he had (because LotR states that), but if we're speaking of TH as part of the M-e 'canon', it is out of place, & while it can be read as a wonderfully entertaining story in its own right, it doesn't 'fit' in with the epic, tragic, mood of the rest of the Legendarium. Personally, I cannot see the Elrond (or Glorfindel) of The Sil or LotR 'Tra-la-la-lallying'. TH was not intended to be part of the Legendarium - & neither, at first, was its sequel. If it had been I don't believe the cockney trolls & the 'Tra-la-la-lallying' Elves would have seen the light of day.

TH is a book I love, but 'Middle-earth' it depicts is not the Middle-earth of the rest of the Legendarium - because it was never intended to be.

I have to stress that I consider TH to be part of the Tolkien canon, & that as a story set in its own secondary world, it works. Its only when it is read as part of the Legendarium, on equal terms with The Sil writings & LotR, that it 'fails'.

[mark12_30]

We've got a hobbit named "Sam"; do we lose sleep over that? Or over his "Bless me, Mister Frodo" even though there's no church?

"it doesn't 'fit' in with the epic, tragic, mood of the rest of the Legendarium. "

So by your argument "THe Adventures of Tom Bombadil" isn't canon either. In order to be canon, the mood must be tragic? Then we throw out Sam's Oliphaunt, and his Troll Song-- it's absurd. Let's cut out "The Man In the Moon Stayed Up Too Late." Then we'll throw out Bombadil. And Pippin really must grow up and get serious. Boromir's sarcasm-- out. And Gandalf is not allowed any more fireworks-- they are beneath his dignity.

This tone thing has gone too far. Nobody in Middle-Earth is allowed to have fun. Including the Professor.

"Personally, I cannot see the Elrond (or Glorfindel) of The Sil or LotR 'Tra-la-la-lallying'."

I can. "Those were happier days."

[davem]

Originally Posted by Helen

So by your argument "THe Adventures of Tom Bombadil" isn't canon either. In order to be canon, the mood must be tragic? Then we throw out Sam's Oliphaunt, and his Troll Song-- it's absurd. Let's cut out "The Man In the Moon Stayed Up Too Late." Then we'll throw out Bombadil. And Pippin really must grow up and get serious. Boromir's sarcasm-- out. And Gandalf is not allowed any more fireworks-- they are beneath his dignity.

This tone thing has gone too far. Nobody in Middle-Earth is allowed to have fun. Including the Professor.

We're not talking (at least I'm not) about Hobbits (or the Hobbit poetry ot AoTB). We're talking about Elves (& Trolls) The (Rivendell) Elves in TH are not consistent with the rest of the Legendarium. Bombadil works because he is a 'unique' figure. Tolkien himself repeatedly stated he was uncomfortable with the 'tone' of TH. I'd suggest that this 'discomfort' was not due to TH as a story in its own right, but purely because it had been taken up into the Legendarium & it didn't fit. He only changed the Riddles in the Dark chapter to make it more consistent with LotR - not because the original version didn't work in the context of TH itself.

I can. "Those were happier days."

In the Council chapter her says he has lived through three Ages of the world & 'seen many defeats & many fruitless victories'. Given his history, including the 'loss' of his wife in terrible circumstances, I cannot imagine a 'Tra-la-la-laly' passing his lips.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by davem

In the Council chapter her says he has lived through three Ages of the world & 'seen many defeats & many fruitless victories'. Given his history, including the 'loss' of his wife in terrible circumstances, I cannot imagine a 'Tra-la-la-laly' passing his lips.

On the contrary. All the more reason to laugh, lest one be consumed with grief. And I think Elrond would be wise enough to know that. Gandalf was. "Be merry; we meet again." Glorfindel's horse had bells on his headstall; hardly a somber design.

Elves laugh. THey can be deadly; they can be merry. It's part of their charm.

"And Elves, sir! Elves here, and elves there! Some like kings, terrible and splendid; and some as merry as children."

Bilbo and Elrond in the Hall of FIre:

"I shall have to get my friend the Dunedain to help me. WHere is he?"

Elrond laughed. "He shall be found, " he said. "Then you two shall go into a corner and finish your task, and we will hear it and judge it before we end our merrymaking." Messengers were sent to find Bilbo's friend...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien himself repeatedly stated he was uncomfortable with the 'tone' of TH. I'd suggest that this 'discomfort' was not due to TH as a story in its own right, but purely because it had been taken up into the Legendarium & it didn't fit. He only changed the Riddles in the Dark chapter to make it more consistent with LotR - not because the original version didn't work in the context of TH itself.

And shame on Tolkien for making those changes. It's like an old gaffer embarassed about escapades of his younger self, and attempting to rewrite the historical account. EDIT: Or police explanations about deaths in custody: it might be what they wished to have happened, but that is not an honest reflection of what truly happened. And somewhere along the way, someone or some text gets demonised.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mark12_30

So by your argument "THe Adventures of Tom Bombadil" isn't canon either. In order to be canon, the mood must be tragic? Then we throw out Sam's Oliphaunt, and his Troll Song-- it's absurd. Let's cut out "The Man In the Moon Stayed Up Too Late." Then we'll throw out Bombadil. And Pippin really must grow up and get serious. Boromir's sarcasm-- out. And Gandalf is not allowed any more fireworks-- they are beneath his dignity.

This tone thing has gone too far. Nobody in Middle-Earth is allowed to have fun. Including the Professor.

Here, here, Helen! Let me echo what SpM posted earlier.

I think we can get too carried away with defining what is consistent with "the Legendarium." That is all well and appropriate for discussion of the inner consistency of the mythology and for an individual opinion or interpretation of the matter.

However, as Helen implies, there are many other works by Tolkien which don't conform strictly to the mythology. But why should the mythology become the defining characteristic?

Going by traditional definitions that pertain to literary studies (for what that is worth), here's Dictionary.com's definition of canon:

A group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field: “the durable canon of American short fiction” (William Styron).

The works of a writer that have been accepted as authentic: the entire Shakespeare canon.

Time was (and this is back in Tolkien's day), canon meant things that a writer published in his lifetime. In fact, students were not allowed to write dissertations on writers still alive, as such a dissertation would be incomplete, the writer still capable of producing more.

This is, of course, just one approach. It is, however, one which acknowledges all works a writer produces, not just those which conform to a standard developed later in life or after death.

Notoriously, Tolkien's ideas about Middle-earth changed as he wrote. This is the important thing about him: he did not achieve--and possibly never aspired to--a standard of art which imitated that of the elves. Time is everywhere in his work. Never again would he write in exactly the same style as he did for his children in TH. But he still went on to include silly Tom Bombadil in LOtR and another group of poems. He did not entirely lose a sense of whimsy and silliness. 'Smith' and 'Leaf by Niggle' are his works even if they don't quite fit his foreward to LotR.

Writers do not have to be consistent. They just have to be entertaining. And imaginative. And, in the case of fantasy, darn good at depicting a perilous realm. Maybe one way of thinking about this is to acknowledge that for Tolkien, the perilous realm was more than just Middle earth. And more than just tragedy or epic. "prose romance' covers a great deal.

Frankly, I agree with SpM that The Silm, as a work pubished after Tolkien's death and substantively editted and revised by Christopher Tolkien, is the questionable work. Without Tolkien pere's imprimateur, it is the Silm that 'fails' (sic), not TH.

EDIT: Opps. Cross posting with davem. Yes, blame oblo. The next best thing to Canada.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Frankly, I agree with SpM that The Silm, as a work pubished after Tolkien's death and substantively editted and revised by Christopher Tolkien, is the questionable work. Without Tolkien pere's imprimateur, it is the Silm that 'fails' (sic), not TH.

I hope I answered your other points but I want to stress that I was referring to The Sil writings - ie the contents of HoMe, not to CT's 'reconstruction'.

However, as Helen implies, there are many other works by Tolkien which don't conform strictly to the mythology. But why should the mythology become the defining characteristic?

Because that's what we're talking about - not whether TH is a 'canonical' work in the sense of being something Tolkien wrote, but whether it 'fits' the Legendarium comfortably. Tolkien's 'discomfort' over its 'tone' implies he, at least, felt it didn't.