Canon: what ARE we babbling about? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Lalwendë · 08-19-2005, 01:21 PM

mark 12_30 has just said what I was going to use as an argument - Yes, The Hobbit can stand alone, but that doesn't mean it has nothing to do with LotR. The curious thing is that all of Tolkien's published works can stand alone; the person who simply reads LotR and cannot get through The Sil is a common person - meaning that there are a lot of people who do this and there is nothing wrong in that. And The Sil is as different to LotR as The Hobbit is to LotR. If tone and style are the consideration then we might as well chuck out either LotR or The Sil too.

Of course the Elves of Rivendell in LotR are a whole lot more serious. They are in the process of discussing the fate of Middle-earth!

To use the Letters is itself risky - here we have a highly verbose and occasionally opinionated Tolkien explaining the tales after the fact. It is a very convenient way for him to add in explanation which he may not have intended - and which may even be intended for the (then) sole audience of the recipient of the letter. He was also (like Flieger

) an academic and an incredibly highly respected one at that and so his letters might be in some respects a form of PR to uphold his reputation.

View Poll Results: Canonicity means:
The author's published works, during his lifetime	3	15.00%
The author's published works including those edited/published posthumously	5	25.00%
ALL of the author's works, notes, letters, and ideas, published or not, conflicting or not	9	45.00%
What the reading community says is Canon	0	0%
What the BarrowDowns community says is Canon	1	5.00%
What the critics say is Canon	0	0%
Canon is whatever I, the reader, want it to be	1	5.00%
Something completely (or slightly) different [if you choose this last option, please explain yourself in the thread. Thank you]	1	5.00%
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll

08-19-2005, 01:21 PM	#29
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	mark 12_30 has just said what I was going to use as an argument - Yes, The Hobbit can stand alone, but that doesn't mean it has nothing to do with LotR. The curious thing is that all of Tolkien's published works can stand alone; the person who simply reads LotR and cannot get through The Sil is a common person - meaning that there are a lot of people who do this and there is nothing wrong in that. And The Sil is as different to LotR as The Hobbit is to LotR. If tone and style are the consideration then we might as well chuck out either LotR or The Sil too. Of course the Elves of Rivendell in LotR are a whole lot more serious. They are in the process of discussing the fate of Middle-earth! To use the Letters is itself risky - here we have a highly verbose and occasionally opinionated Tolkien explaining the tales after the fact. It is a very convenient way for him to add in explanation which he may not have intended - and which may even be intended for the (then) sole audience of the recipient of the letter. He was also (like Flieger ) an academic and an incredibly highly respected one at that and so his letters might be in some respects a form of PR to uphold his reputation. __________________ Gordon's alive!