Canon: what ARE we babbling about?

[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'.