Canon: what ARE we babbling about?

[davem]

The Hobbit, which has much more essential life in it, was quite independently conceived:

Which is what I said - in origin TH had nothing to do with the Legendarium. Whereas you stated:

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.

I think what you've actually done is confirm my statement.

But it proved to be the discovery of the completion of the whole, its mode of descent to earth, and merging into 'history'. As the high Legends of the beginning are supposed to look at things through Elvish minds, so the middle tale of the Hobbit takes a virtually human point of view – and the last tale blends them.

I don't think that's how most people read TH. The 'virtually human' point of view is served better by the early chapters of LotR. TH does it much less well. Bilbo - whatever Tolkien says here is much more of a fairytale creature himself in TH. Hobbits only become 'humanised' fully in LotR.

Both are the essential background to The Hobbit and its sequel.

That 'background' is not essential to TH. Did you wonder about Numenor when you first read TH? Did you even know about Numenor? This letter was written to Milton Waldman, who Tolkien was trying to persuade to publish The Sil. Neither FoN or ORP&TA are necessary to an understanding of TH - they are only necessary to an understanding of LotR. TH is not necessary to an understanding of LotR, though.

You may consider Tolkien's integration of TH into the Legendarium clunky or inept and wish that it had never been attempted, but it is demonstrably absurd to contend that it did not happen, or that the world of TH is not the world of LotR and/or The Silmarillion.

Did I 'contend' that - I must have missed myself saying that. The 'world', the millieu, the mood, the tone. The 'world' of TH is only the same 'world' if we limit ourselves to mere 'geography'. A secondary 'world' is not simply a geographical space on map.

"[The Hobbit] is not consciously based on any other book — save one, and that is unpublished: the 'Silmarillion', a history of the Elves, to which frequent allusion is made."
-Letter 25

This statement is directly contradicted by Tolkien himself in Letter 257 which I quoted earlier:

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

. .

"I am glad you enjoyed 'the Hobbit'. I have in fact been engaged for ten years on writing another (longer) work about the same world and period of history, in which at any rate all can be learned about the Necromancer and the mines of Moria."
-Letter 114

This was written to a schoolboy. Tolkien would not have gone into depth regarding the way TH had become caught up in the Legendarium. By the time Tolkien wrote that letter (1948) TH had become linked in Tolkien's mind with the Legendarium. It was not part of the Legendarium when he wrote it.

Anyway, in short, you have offered no evidence (beyond yours & Tolkien opinion that TH is a vital part of the Legendarium. The Legendarium does not need it & TH is better off without that burden.

[Mister Underhill]

Which davem am I talking to? The one who thinks Authorial Intention is all, or the one who apparently stands ready to jettison a whole book and (apparently) slash whole sections of LotR even over the claims of the author, all on the basis of the opinion of some Tolkien scholar? The latter -- at least for the present -- it seems.

Of course there are the annoying facts of the Shire, the Ring, Gollum, old fairy-tale Bilbo himself, Elrond, Gandalf, Gloin, Balin, the Beornings, the Sackville-Bagginses (Heaven forbid! Too silly by far!), etc. and so on ad infinitum with which we must contend.

When Bilbo intruded into the Legendarium, he -- and Hobbits -- troubled the counsels of the Wise and the Great in more ways than one. His appearance echoed backwards and forwards through the Legendarium. You prefer your faerie dark and Elvish and brooding and epic, and that's fine. But that's not all there is in Middle-earth, nor all that Tolkien saw there.

You can kick the stone troll in the seat of his pants if you like, but you'll only end up breaking your own toe after all.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

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

I wasn't arguing anything. I was speculating in response to a question that you asked.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

You say that elements of the Legendarium are present in both Roverandom and The Hobbit, but that neither were originally written as part of it. I don't dispute that. The difference is that Tolkien never incorporated Roverandom into his history of Middle-earth. The same cannot be said of The Hobbit. You make the point yourself:

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Personally, I would not choose the words "forced" and "dragged", but I agree with the point that you make here. Tolkien deliberately chose to incorporate The Hobbit within his history of Middle-earth. Whether that incorporation seems forced or whether one considers it smooth is not the point. It is clear from LotR that Bilbo's adventure, as relayed in The Hobbit, took place some 80 years prior to the War of the Ring.

As Mister Underhill said:

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Of course there are the annoying facts of the Shire, the Ring, Gollum, old fairy-tale Bilbo himself, Elrond, Gandalf, Gloin, Balin, the Beornings, the Sackville-Bagginses (Heaven forbid! Too silly by far!), etc. and so on ad infinitum with which we must contend.

I would add Frodo and co's encounter with Bilbo's Stone Trolls into the mix too. Wether they were called William, Tom and Bert or Wollyam, Tzomm and Bhat matters not. They existed. Bilbo and the Dwarves encountered them. And they ended up turned to Stone. Oh, and their cache included Glamdring and Sting, both of which played their part in the War of the Ring.

Whether you dismiss parts of Bilbo's tale as fanciful or consider them merely whimsical, the point is that the events that he related occured, within your "secondary world" as part of the history of Middle-earth.

Originally Posted by davem

Again, that's not what I said, so I don't see why I need argue.

Actually, my Walter Mitty point was not made in response to you. Yet you go on to make it applicable to you:

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.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

I'm sorry, davem, your attempts to argue your point are, as always, most valiant. But, on this one, I would advise that you heed the words of your former signature.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mr U

Which davem am I talking to? The one who thinks Authorial Intention is all, or the one who apparently stands ready to jettison a whole book and (apparently) slash whole sections of LotR even over the claims of the author, all on the basis of the opinion of some Tolkien scholar? The latter -- at least for the present -- it seems.

I don't think I said I think 'authorial intention is all'. I said in other threads that we should try to just experience the art in as pure & uncluttered a way as possible. I've never suggested 'jettisoning' TH. I said it doesn't fit, in mood, tone or feeling, with the rest of the Legendarium. It doesn't - & everyone's attempts to make it fit require some \pretty convoluted 'explanations'. 'Bilbos' tale grew in the telling' 'He was 'middle class' & the tone reflects that bias' or SpM's

Whether you dismiss parts of Bilbo's tale as fanciful or consider them merely whimsical, the point is that the events that he related occured, within your "secondary world" as part of the history of Middle-earth.

(which btw is something I said myself earlier on.)

I never suggested 'slashing whole sections of LotR' either.

Of course there are the annoying facts of the Shire, the Ring, Gollum, old fairy-tale Bilbo himself, Elrond, Gandalf, Gloin, Balin, the Beornings, the Sackville-Bagginses (Heaven forbid! Too silly by far!), etc. and so on ad infinitum with which we must contend.

No, we don't have to contend with those things at all. We just see & treat TH as at best 'secondary' M-e literature'. All that the Legendarium requires of Bilbo's story is encapsulated in LotR. TH should be seen as a M-e 'fantasia'. You're trying way too hard to keep it as a primary text, equal with LotR & The Sil writings.

Originally Posted by SPM

I would add Frodo and co's encounter with Bilbo's Stone Trolls into the mix too. Wether they were called William, Tom and Bert or Wollyam, Tzomm and Bhat matters not. They existed. Bilbo and the Dwarves encountered them. And they ended up turned to Stone. Oh, and their cache included Glamdring and Sting, both of which played their part in the War of the Ring.

Whether you dismiss parts of Bilbo's tale as fanciful or consider them merely whimsical, the point is that the events that he related occured, within your "secondary world" as part of the history of Middle-earth.

We're not talking about the events of the story but the kind of story it is. It doesn't belong in the Legendarium as a primary text. Its relation to the Legendarium is the same as that of Roverandom & the TB verses.

All I'm getting is that you guys want to keep it in for sentimental reasons. The fact that Bilbo & the Dwarves encountered three trolls, they found the swords & went to Rivendell is accepted. We're not discussing the events depicted - which are part of the Legendarium - we're talking about whether an (in parts condescending) childrens fairy story should be considered a primary text in the Legendarium.

As for the argument that the style of LotR is different from that of The Sil - this won't wash either, as there are Sil writings (the Narn & Tuor & his coming to Gondolin among others) which are in the style of LotR, & Appendix B of LotR is in the 'Annalistic' style of the Grey Annals & the Annals of Valinor etc). Only TH is out of place in terms of style, tone & mood - & the mental gymnastics required to make it 'belong' merely prove that.

I'm not saying you can't have TH. I'm saying it doesn't belong in the Legendarium. Sentimental justifications apart I don't see that anyone has offered any convincing arguments for that.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

All I'm getting is that you guys want to keep it in for sentimental reasons. The fact that Bilbo & the Dwarves encountered three trolls, they found the swords & went to Rivendell is accepted. We're not discussing the events depicted - which are part of the Legendarium - we're talking about whether an (in parts condescending) childrens fairy story should be considered a primary text in the Legendarium.

. . . .

I'm not saying you can't have TH. I'm saying it doesn't belong in the Legendarium. Sentimental justifications apart I don't see that anyone has offered any convincing arguments for that.

Congratulations, davem, for taking the thread so completely off topic. We were not discussing what belongs in the Legendarium, but what we mean by the word "canon". 'Canon' is not equivalent with "Legendarium."

From SpM to Fordim to my own posts, three of us have offerred definitions of that word in testimony to our point here--a definition which you have ignored and even studiously obfuscated.

Originally Posted by davem

TH is clearly a 'non-canonical' secondarytext, of dubious value in terms of the actualite it presents. It may be accepted by some readers as having a value to the main body of the myth & by others as being 'mere' entertainment.

I think that sums up the positions....

By the definitions offerred you cannot call it non-canonical and then say well, I meant non-Legendarium. And using the single quotation punctuation marks is a wafflish weasle bit of rhetorical legerdemain, roughly akin to having your cake and eating it too. And I am not aware that defining terms is a feature of sentimentality.

Your argument belongs in a completely different thread. I'm sure you would find yourself in less of a minority should you wish to argue it there. Although I'm not sure just what all the fuss is about.

Ideas evolve, transform. Sometimes we start out on the road without knowing where we will end. What was it T. S. Eliot said? Something to the effect of "to return from all our wanderings and know the place for the first time."

A children's tale that bore traces of Tolkien's own academic reading, lore, and languages is what got him going and what stimulated his publishers into getting him to write more. These are facts of publishing history. Maybe academics are embarassed about the significance of childish things to adults?

[Lalwendë]

So, there is Tolkien canon and Legendarium canon? (davem has been insisting on this ). From this there are certain texts which are plainly not part of the information which we have about Middle-earth - and there are those which plainly are about Middle-earth. However, I still do not accept that The Hobbit should be considered as separate from the Legendarium purely because it has a different tone and style.

Even if Tolkien himself did not think the style was coherent with the style of LotR and The Sil, it is still part of the Legendarium because it concerns plots, characters and places which we come across within other parts of the legendarium, and not just tangentially, but directly and extensively.

Many many writers have been and would be uncomfortable for certain works they have produced to be considered by scholars but nevertheless they are considered. Tolkien's own Letters do not demonstrate that he was particularly embarrassed by The Hobbit, merely that he didn't like certain aspects of it and in retrospect thought they may have been improved in some way.

The question of style and tone is now really just one of taste. The Hobbit is already out there, on release as t'were, and there isn't anything we can do about it, and as such it will inevitably be considered as part of ther Legendarium.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Maybe academics are embarassed about the significance of childish things to adults?

Too true I fear. Maybe it is one of the pitfalls of intellectualising a legendarium that is at root simply a good adventure?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Congratulations, davem, for taking the thread so completely off topic. We were not discussing what belongs in the Legendarium, but what we mean by the word "canon". 'Canon' is not equivalent with "Legendarium."

From SpM to Fordim to my own posts, three of us have offerred definitions of that word in testimony to our point here--a definition which you have ignored and even studiously obfuscated.

I think if you read Obloquy's post (no 5) you'll see where this 'canon' question arose.

There is a Middle-earth 'canon' - writings by Tolkien (& Christopher as well now) which are about Middle-earth. The question is which writings belong in it & what relevance they have. Therefore it is a question of canonicity in that sense. This thread is about what we mean when we use the term 'canon' in relation to Tolkien's writings. If we're simply going to accept the dictionary definition of 'canon' this thread is meaningless. Canon is defined (Merriam-webster) as:
a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works <the canon of great literature> Hence one can talk about the Middle-earth 'canon' (or Legendarium if you like.)

A children's tale that bore traces of Tolkien's own academic reading, lore, and languages is what got him going and what stimulated his publishers into getting him to write more. These are facts of publishing history. Maybe academics are embarassed about the significance of childish things to adults?

This is not relevant to the point I'm making - which is how or if TH is a primary text within the M-e 'canon' - or whether it actually belongs there at all.

Tolkien himself was uncomfortable with the condescending tone of TH - the knowing wink to the adults in the adults in the audience, what he called the 'pigwiggenry' (On Fairy Stories) - which is what we see in the early parts of TH/ In fact, as Flieger pointed out it was after the writing of TH that he wrote that essay. Certainly he never wrote in that 'style' again - if he had no problem with that 'tone' why not?

Originally Posted by Lalwende

Even if Tolkien himself did not think the style was coherent with the style of LotR and The Sil, it is still part of the Legendarium because it concerns plots, characters and places which we come across within other parts of the legendarium, and not just tangentially, but directly and extensively.

Its a story that makes use of the Legendarium. & which Tolkien attempted to integrate into it at a later date. Whether he succeeded or not is the question.