Canon: what ARE we babbling about?

[davem]

Originally Posted by SPM

But that's not what "canon" means. Something is "canon" if it is part of the recognised works (which I would interpret as published works) of the author. In the context of Middle-earth this includes anything within Tolkien's recognised works concerning Middle-earth. It does not have to "fit" the style or mood of the other works in order to be canon, and neither does it have to develop the "story".

So is Roverandom part of the Middle-earth canon? Roverandom had just as much of a basis in the Silmarillion mythology as The Hobbit when it was first written. I think you'd have a major problem fitting talking toy dogs & moon spiders into the Legendarium. TH was never written to be part of the Legendarium & Tolkien had to rewrite it to make it fit even as weakly as it does. If LotR had not been written - ie if The Sil had been accepted for publication as Tolkien wished after the success of TH, then no-one would have thought of it as having anything to do with The Sil. The world of TH is not the world of The Sil, its Elves & trolls are not the Elves & trolls of The Sil. They are the Elves & trolls of children's fairy story.

I simply don't get this. What is the "Legendarium" without the detail? Little of import would be lost by cutting out much of the detail of LotR. What does Bombadil add to the story? How does it further the tale to have a detailed description of Lothlorien or the plains of Rohan? No, Bilbo's tale of his adventure is as much a part of the "Legendarium" as Legolas' account of events at Pelargir and the description of Sam's temptation by the Ring. Otherwise where do we draw the line? If we were to start picking and choosing what is "necessary" to further the "Legendarium", there is a danger that we would be left with very little indeed. In fact, one might argue that this is exactly what happened to Tolkien's "Silmarillion writings" with the publication of The Silmarillion.

LotR was (increasingly) written to fit into The world of The Sil - TH was not. It had to be made (unsuccessfuly IMO) to fit by alteration. Its not a matter of what is 'necessary' but of mood, tone, style, content. TH belongs with Roverandom & to a lesser extent with Giles (& with Goblin Feet). All good (apart from the latter). It has links with M-e, but it doesn't fit, & it should be seen as a 'children's fairy story' work, a 'sub-sub creation. Bilbo experienced something of that kind, but I don't see any evidence that Tolkien was completely happy for it to be included. It had to be there, in a way, due to LotR growing out of it, but Tolkien expressed his discomfort with it. Its in the Legendarium on suffrance, because Tolkien couldn't rewrite it in a more suitable style - as he stated he wished to. If he'd had his way it would have been rewritten in the form of The Quest of Erebor. As such, it would have belonged.

And, let's not forget that the main reason LotR is dismissed by so many critics as a 'children's' book is because it is read in the light if TH. From that perspective TH may have done more harm to Tolkien's literary reputation than good.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

So is Roverandom part of the Middle-earth canon? .

No, it is part of Tolkien's canon.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by davem

And, let's not forget that the main reason LotR is dismissed by so many critics as a 'children's' book is because it is read in the light if TH. From that perspective TH may have done more harm to Tolkien's literary reputation than good.

Hmm. This must be yours (or Flieger's ?) interpretation, but that is not the full story of critical appraisal of Tolkien.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

So is Roverandom part of the Middle-earth canon?

I have never read Roverandom, but I’m guessing that it does not (and was never intended to) form part of the “History of Middle-earth” and therefore that it does not. Although I must say that talking dogs are not a far cry from sentient foxes and eagles. Perhaps we should excise the fox from LotR for not “fitting” the tone of the rest of the story.

Originally Posted by davem

TH was never written to be part of the Legendarium & Tolkien had to rewrite it to make it fit even as weakly as it does.

The point is, though, that he did deliberately make it part of the Legendarium, even if that was not his intention at the outset. Should we not therefore bow to authorial intent and accept it as such?

It’s your opinion that it fits only weakly, and you are obviously entitled to it. But, from what has been said so far, others are clearly of a different opinon. For my part, I do not see the expanations that Helen, HI and Lalwendë have given as being over-elaborate. The explanation that Bilbo was exagerrating much of it, however, I do find unconvincing. Bilbo the whimsical I can accept. Bilbo as Walter Mitty I cannot.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by davem

TH was never written to be part of the Legendarium & Tolkien had to rewrite it to make it fit even as weakly as it does. If LotR had not been written - ie if The Sil had been accepted for publication as Tolkien wished after the success of TH, then no-one would have thought of it as having anything to do with The Sil.

The Sil was written and re-written but as yet unfinished, and LOTR did not yet exist, yet there was Elrond in TH-- talking about Gondolin and the Goblin Wars. TH snatched that little bit of Sil-background before LotR was even contemplated or asked for.

If you are saying that TH is not an integral part of the Sil, I agree with you. It ain't. But it arose out of the same compost (so to speak) and is part of the same forest.

[Mister Underhill]

davem, I wonder if you'd care to back up some of these assertions that you make with such confidence ("the world of TH is not the world of The Sil", "TH was never written to be part of the Legendarium") with cold hard citations. I'm betting that if you can, I can contradict them with cites that run the other way. Here's a sample:

The magic and mythology and assumed 'history' and most of the names (e.g. the epic of the Fall of Gondolin) [of The Hobbit] are, alas!, drawn from unpublished inventions, known only to my family, Miss Griffiths and Mr Lewis. I believe they give the narrative an air of 'reality' and have a northern atmosphere.

-Letter 15, 1937

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Geez, it's amazing how often I have to settle this issue for you all...

According to the OED:

Canon

4. The collection or list of books of the Bible accepted by the Christian Church as genuine and inspired. Also transf., any set of sacred books; also, those writings of a secular author accepted as authentic.

Seems to me that if we're using the word 'canon' in its usual sense, then, it would cover everything Tolkien wrote -- at least, everything he wrote that we are willing to accept as "authentic":

6. Really proceeding from its reputed source or author; of undisputed origin, genuine. (Opposed to counterfeit, forged, apocryphal.

So, if we can prove that Tolkien wrote it, it's part of the canon. Now, whether or not you are:

a) compelled to accept what the author has written

b) willing to accept what the author has written

c) free to accept what the author has written, or

d) couldn't care less what the author has written

is another issue entirely.

[obloquy]

The Hobbit fixes its own discrepancies by recognizing Bilbo as the author rather than Tolkien. He was writing an adventure story, not annals of Middle-earth. I asserted that it is not strictly canonical mythology-wise because Bilbo did not necessarily have this fidelity to fact in mind when writing it. The events presented in the book are still "true" events in the course of the Third Age, but the details, in my opinion, should be considered "flexible."

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Hmm. This must be yours (or Flieger's ?) interpretation, but that is not the full story of critical appraisal of Tolkien.

I said 'so many critics'. I didn't say I was offering 'the full story of the critical appraisal of Tolkien'.

=SpmI have never read Roverandom, but I’m guessing that it does not (and was never intended to) form part of the “History of Middle-earth” and therefore that it does not. Although I must say that talking dogs are not a far cry from sentient foxes and eagles. Perhaps we should excise the fox from LotR for not “fitting” the tone of the rest of the story.

Bit difficult for you to argue the point then, isn't it? Anyway.

Neither was TH. In both Roverandom & TH Tolkien used his existing mythology to provide background & give the illusion of 'depth'. In fact Roverandom refers to the existing mythology far more specifically than TH. TH was written as a fairy story & had to be forced to fit the mythology. Therefore, unlike all JRRT's other M-e writings it was dragged in. The only other example of this being done by Tolkien was in the Figures of Tom Bombadil & Goldberry, who take on a completely different form when they appear in LotR to the ones they had in the original poem.

The explanation that Bilbo was exagerrating much of it, however, I do find unconvincing. Bilbo the whimsical I can accept. Bilbo as Walter Mitty I cannot.

Again, that's not what I said, so I don't see why I need argue. However. The Hobbit was not meant to be a part of The Legendarium. It had to be made to fit in. It doesn't fit that well, because the tone & mood is out of keeping with the rest of the work. Helen's, H-I's & Lalwende's 'explanations' which are intended to account for the differences in tone & mood between TH & TS & LotR are their own work & as far as I'm aware were never offered by Tolkien himself, who stated that he was uncomfortable with the style & tone of the work. Clearly Tolkien felt TH in its original form did not fit, or he would not have made the changes - many minor (see Anderson 'The Annotated Hobbit') & one major - the rewrite of Riddles in the Dark, which presents us with a completely different Gollum to the one in the original.

Originally Posted by Helen

If you are saying that TH is not an integral part of the Sil, I agree with you. It ain't. But it arose out of the same compost (so to speak) and is part of the same forest.

That's what I'm saying. TH is part of the same 'forest' but its growing alongside Roverandom - the 'graft' onto the greater 'Tree' didn't take - IMO, of course.

Originally Posted by Mr U

davem, I wonder if you'd care to back up some of these assertions that you make with such confidence ("the world of TH is not the world of The Sil", "TH was never written to be part of the Legendarium") with cold hard citations. I'm betting that if you can, I can contradict them with cites that run the other way. Here's a sample:
Quote:
The magic and mythology and assumed 'history' and most of the names (e.g. the epic of the Fall of Gondolin) [of The Hobbit] are, alas!, drawn from unpublished inventions, known only to my family, Miss Griffiths and Mr Lewis. I believe they give the narrative an air of 'reality' and have a northern atmosphere.
-Letter 15, 1937

It was not written to be part of the Legendarium because the world in which it takes place was invented for the story & was not envisaged as part of Middle-earth. It only became part of Middle-earth when the 'New Hobbit' became LotR & was absorbed into the Legendarium. As for 'cold hard citations', I'll give you just one - HoMe vol 6.

As to the letter you quote. Again - Tolkien used elements from the existing mythology to create an illusion of 'depth'. He used it in the same way in both TH & Roverandom. If you accept one as an intentional addition to the Legendarium I'd like to see how you reject the other.

[b]Fordim[/i] I'm arguing about the 'canon' within the 'Canon'. I'm talking about what is 'canonical' within the Legendarium, the History of Middle-earth, not the wider 'Canon' of Tolkien's writing.

The Hobbit fixes its own discrepancies by recognizing Bilbo as the author rather than Tolkien.

No it doesn't, because the 'discrepancies' are too extreme, & were only made slightly less so by the changes Tolkien made to the original text. What TH actually is is a 'fairy story' written with no other purpose than to entertain his children. It owed at least as much to Wyke-Smith's Magical Land of the Snergs as to the Legendarium, if not far more. Dwarves in the Legendarium do not take out musical instruments & sing comic songs. Trolls do not have names like 'Bert, Tom & Bill. Elves do not sing 'Tra-la-la-lally'. If Bilbo Baggins says they did I'd like to know what kind of pipe-weed he was smoking.

TH is a beautiful fairy story, very imperfectly assimilated into the Legendarium - not because Tolkien was a bad writer/adaptor, but because the story was being put to a use for which it was not originally intended. It does not belong in the Legendarium in the form in which it exists. I admire all the attempts being made to 'explain' Bilbo's 'exagerations', but there's such a thing as 'straining at a gnat & swallowing a camel.'

What is of value in TH to the Legendarium as a work of literary Art (or Genius), is to be found in the pages of LotR. In itself it contains some wonderful episodes & the second half in particular is a very powerful & moving story, but it just doesn't fit at all comfortably with what precedes or follows it.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by davem

Dwarves in the Legendarium do not take out musical instruments & sing comic songs. Trolls do not have names like 'Bert, Tom & Bill. Elves do not sing 'Tra-la-la-lally'. If Bilbo Baggins says they did I'd like to know what kind of pipe-weed he was smoking.

Old Toby, but that's beside the point. What other trolls names do we know? What other troll conversations do we overhear? None. They're too busy fighting.

Dwarves, and elves, singing comic songs-- that's like saying, because the story of Henry V is so majestic, nobody in the battle of Agincourt has a sense of humor. It doesn't follow. Galadriel being "Merry as any lass with daisies in her hair in springtime" disproves it. The idea that any playfulness is verboten, any comic relief is out of place, doesn't hold water in LOTR. Humor even shows up in the Sil, although it's a bit harder to find. "Nonetheless they will have need of wood."

Originally Posted by davem

TH is a beautiful fairy story, very imperfectly assimilated into the Legendarium - not because Tolkien was a bad writer/adaptor, but because the story was being put to a use for which it was not originally intended. It does not belong in the Legendarium in the form in which it exists.

I disagree. Original intent was clearly set aside, and although Tolkien had misgivings, clearly he got over them somehow and proceeded to connected the two. I do not see that connection as a mistake, a misplacement, or a mismatch.

Originally Posted by davem

I admire all the attempts being made to 'explain' Bilbo's 'exagerations', but there's such a thing as 'straining at a gnat & swallowing a camel.'

davem, honestly I don't think we're the ones swallowing the camel. Tolkien made the connection, despite some hemming and hawing (as was his wont, throughout the development of LOTR anyway, and was also the reason that the Sil wasn't published during his lifetime.) Tolkien put The Hobbit into the legendarium; we're letting him keep it there rather than arguing him out of his decision. Throwing out The Hobbit seems as utterly illogical to me as, apparently, keeping it in seems to you.

After all this I do notice that you haven't voted (few have.) Are you casting your vote for the final "Other" and submitting your new definition?

[Lalwendë]

Whatever the 'tone' or more aptly, style, of The Hobbit, it still would not be enough reason to exclude it from the Legendarium. It includes tales of things which are relevant to LotR and relevant to Middle-earth and so it is included, just as would be Adventures of Tom Bombadil. Whether it is serious or not is no justification for leaving it out. Jane Austen wrote Northanger Abbey as a satire and it is very different in tone to Persuasion but we do not cast it aside in considering her work.

As has already been pointed out many times, Tolkien was a perfectionist. It is lucky that anything was published from his Legendarium, and I am sure he would have jumped at the chance to revise LotR - his letters following it are filled with explanations, some of which seem to be highly revisionist.

If the world in which The Hobbit takes place was not meant to be part of the Legendarium then what do we say about The Shire? The character of Bilbo as introduced in The Hobbit is an archetypal Hobbit, certainly at first before he goes off on his adventures, and for a good way into the tale he remains the uncertain and slightly sceptical character we first meet. When we get to LotR we are thoroughly convinced that Hobbits and The Shire are things worth saving, we do not need to be convinced that the Ring is a threat because we know. Even in the films there had to be a prologue because the story simply would not have been 'set up' enough. I feel sorry for anyone who has not started with The Hobbit as it prepares us for what is to come.

Even if Tolkien genuinely hated The Hobbit (and I don't think he did - he was merely being perfectionist as usual) then the fact cannot be altered that it was published prior to LotR and without it there wouldn't even have been LotR. It is a fitting prologue to the longer work.

OK, so we might read LotR very well without it as we can get 'the basics' from the later text, but it is a sorry state of affairs when we are told that it is not necessary as though reading Tolkien's work was merely an ordeal to be got through. Where is the magic in that? We might as well read Brodies' Notes and have done. Flieger's argument sounded rather like a long-winded way of trying to justify why she didn't like The Hobbit and it didn't work as an argument as she contradicts herself.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Helen

What other trolls names do we know? What other troll conversations do we overhear? None. They're too busy fighting.

Sorry, but the trolls of TH are different. The 'argument' is about why. Either Bilbo produced such a travesty of the facts as to call his whole account into question, or we have a totally unrelated story grafted on to the Legendarium - to the disadvantage of both.

Dwarves, and elves, singing comic songs-- that's like saying, because the story of Henry V is so majestic, nobody in the battle of Agincourt has a sense of humor. It doesn't follow. Galadriel being "Merry as any lass with daisies in her hair in springtime" disproves it. The idea that any playfulness is verboten, any comic relief is out of place, doesn't hold water in LOTR. Humor even shows up in the Sil, although it's a bit harder to find. "Nonetheless they will have need of wood."

I'm not saying 'playfulness is verboten' - I'm saying in the context of the Legendarium [/i]that particular kind[/i] of playfulness is out of character. If that kind of thing did not appear in TH it would simply feel wrong in the context of the Legendarium as a whole. Its the wrong kind of 'merrymaking'. The Elves of Rivendell in TH are just silly - the epic 'tragedy' is absent.

Tolkien put The Hobbit into the legendarium; we're letting him keep it there rather than arguing him out of his decision. Throwing out The Hobbit seems as utterly illogical to me as, apparently, keeping it in seems to you.

He put an adapted version of it into The Sil, & even after writing The Quest of Erebor he realised it didn't 'fit'.

Some of the details of tone & treatment are, I now think...mistaken. (Letter 131)

I might not (if the story had been more carefully written & my world so much thought about 20 years ago) have used the expression 'Poor little blighter.' just as I should not have called the troll William (Letter 154)

The Hobbit was originally quite unconnected, though it inevitably got drawn in to the circumference of the greater construction; & in the event modified it. It was unhappily really meant, as far as I was conscious, as a 'children's story', & as I had not learned sense then, & my children were not quite old enough to correct me, it has some of the silliness of manner caught unthinkingly from the kind of stuff I had served to me..(Letter 163) See also Letters 215 & 234.

Even so it (TH) could really stand quite apart, except for the references (quite unneccessary, though they give an impression of historical depth) to the Fall of Gondolin. Letter 257.

I think I can call on Tolkien's support - particularly in what he says in that last quote. TH could (should?) stand quite apart. One could not say that of LotR...

Originally Posted by Lalwende

Even if Tolkien genuinely hated The Hobbit (and I don't think he did - he was merely being perfectionist as usual) then the fact cannot be altered that it was published prior to LotR and without it there wouldn't even have been LotR. It is a fitting prologue to the longer work.

No-one said he hated it. I said I loved it, but as a work in its own right, not as a part of the Legendarium.

OK, so we might read LotR very well without it as we can get 'the basics' from the later text, but it is a sorry state of affairs when we are told that it is not necessary as though reading Tolkien's work was merely an ordeal to be got through. Where is the magic in that? We might as well read Brodies' Notes and have done. Flieger's argument sounded rather like a long-winded way of trying to justify why she didn't like The Hobbit and it didn't work as an argument as she contradicts herself.

I don't see it as 'an ordeal' I just don't see it as a necessary 'prequel'. The true 'prequel' to LotR is The Sil.

(Flieger's argument didn't sound 'self-contradictory' to me....waits for slap )