Canon: what ARE we babbling about?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

How one can, logically, exclude from the mythology the story which introduces one of Tolkien's most original contributions, the hobbits. Aren't the hobbits the most original part of the Legendarium?

No, the Elves are. Tolkien's Elves are his unique creation - the name might have existed already, but as he says in Appendix F of LotR he merely made use of the closest modern term for his Eldar.

Furthermore, to jettison the original concept of hobbits for any later one is a revisionary act, particularly reprehensible if it attempts to deny the original conception and to deny that changes were made to the conception.

I'm not 'jettisoning' the original concept of hobbits. The Hobbits is TH owe too much to the Snergs. 'Hobbits' as we know & love them come in with LotR. Besides, I go back to my main point - TH doesn't 'fit' with The Sil writings or with LotR. It is a children's adventure story, which uses comic Elves, Dwarves & Trolls etc, the creatures of Northern myth, in a highly adventurous, comic saga. It wasn't written as part of the Sil saga, the Legendarium. Tolkien attempted to integrate it, rather than keep it as what it had been. The question, a valid one as far as I can see, is whether that was a correct decision. I don't deny its place in the Tolkien canon, only in the Middle-earth one.

It is something that evolved over time and to ignore that evolution and the different stages of it is to falsify it.

No, TH was not part of the 'evolution' of M-e - it was nothing to do with M-e. LotR was sparked by it but became the sequel to & culmination of The Sil.

Just what version of Galadriel are we supposed to use?

Galadriel was only ever part of the Legendarium. There are changes made within the Legendarium & outside matter which Tolkien attempted to integrate into it. Two different things. TH may well be 'the best introduction to the Mountains' but it is not part of them.

By the way, by referring to Tolkien's use of the word Legendarium, you are backtracking away from your use of Legendarium as "a work of art".

I was being ironic.....

[The Saucepan Man]

Davem. However many times you restate your argument, you are not going to convince me. Nor, I suspect, the majority of contributors to this thread.

As far as I am concerned, any concept of Tolkien's Legendarium which does not include The Hobbit is one that I am not interested in.

I accept, of course, that you are entitled to jettison The Hobbit from your own interpretation of the Legendarium, contrary to the author's intentions. It is your right as a reader.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by davem

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'.

I think yours is the convoluted explanation. The simple explanation is Tolkien's to the schoolboy: "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."

Now try making your explanation of why TH isn't a Middle-earth book to a schoolboy and see which one is more strained and convoluted.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

On our side is the opinion of the author himself that TH was an integral part of his world, as well as connections of plot, character, geography, and history. Sorry, but if you want to see The Hobbit excluded from the Legendarium, the burden of a convincing argument falls on your shoulders. TH is self-evidently a book which takes place in and is about Middle-earth. The only "evidence" you've presented to the contrary is yours and Flieger's opinion about its tone and style.

Originally Posted by davem

It wasn't written as part of the Sil saga, the Legendarium.

It perhaps wasn't begun as part of the Sil saga, but that quickly changed.

Originally Posted by davem

I didn't say they were the 'defining factors'.

Then what are the defining factors? You've already stipulated that the characters, events, and geography are the same as in LotR.

Originally Posted by davem

Its a story that makes use of the Legendarium. & which Tolkien attempted to integrate into it at a later date.

This is untrue, or at least misleading. Tolkien did not complete TH and then later attempt to integrate it into the world of the Sil. It was drawn into the world of the Sil as he wrote.

Originally Posted by davem

Whether he succeeded or not is the question.

What he actually failed to do was to "integrate" the old Sil legends fully into the new reality of Middle-earth which TH and LotR created. There is no complete Silmarillion. What you consider to be the rock upon which the Legendarium is built simply doesn't exist in any finished form.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by davem

TH may well be 'the best introduction to the Mountains' but it is not part of them.

m-mm, would it help to consider the whole as a 'journey', and the Hobbit as the path where the road begins? In the light of Bilbo's:

He used often to say there was only one Road; that it was like a great river: its springs were at every doorstep, and every path was its tributary. “It’s a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door,” he used to say. “You step into the Road, and if you don’t keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.

If you look back from the summit, all the way you've come will make part of the 'journey to the mountains', not only the path that lead you up from mountain's immediate foot.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mr U

Now try making your explanation of why TH isn't a Middle-earth book to a schoolboy and see which one is more strained and convoluted.

I'm not sure how that's relevant. There are lots of true things which are not easily explicable to schoolchildren.

On our side is the opinion of the author himself that TH was an integral part of his world, as well as connections of plot, character, geography, and history. Sorry, but if you want to see The Hobbit excluded from the Legendarium, the burden of a convincing argument falls on your shoulders. TH is self-evidently a book which takes place in and is about Middle-earth. The only "evidence" you've presented to the contrary is yours and Flieger's opinion about its tone and style.

The 'historical' references in TH are few & are only there - as Tolkien stated - to give a sense of historical 'depth'. I didn't just offer 'tone & style' - I offered the out of character behaviour of Elves, Dwarves, Trolls (& of Gnadalf himself come to that).

It perhaps wasn't begun as part of the Sil saga, but that quickly
changed.

This is untrue, or at least misleading. Tolkien did not complete TH and then later attempt to integrate it into the world of the Sil. It was drawn into the world of the Sil as he wrote.

No, it didn't - that's what happened with LotR. TH from beginning to end was never part of the Legendarium, & its sequel 'The New Hobbit' was not part of the Legendarium when Tolkien began it. Only when LotR became the culmination of the Legendarium did Tolkien feel it was necessary to find a way to make TH fit. Again, I'd offer Anderson's Annotated Hobbit & HoMe 6 as proof of that.

Davem. However many times you restate your argument, you are not going to convince me. Nor, I suspect, the majority of contributors to this thread.

I'm not looking to convince anyone.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm not looking to convince anyone

Now that does sound unconvincing

[davem]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Now that does sound unconvincing

No. really. I'm just putting the case. Making people aware of the theory. What people do with it is up to them.

EDIT

If a movie of TH is made what style do you think it would be made in? Would it be made in the 'adult', epic style of LotR (book & movies) or in the style of the book? If it was made in the style of the book what do you think the reaction of those who only knew the movies would be? I've lost count of the number of people who have said that leaving out Tom Bombadil was right because of the 'tweeness' of the episode (which is an opinion I've never agreed with btw) but can anyone really see the cockney Trolls & the Tra-la-la-lallying Elves producing and don't give me the old 'film is a different medium - we're not talking about presentation but about content.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

If a movie of TH is made what style do you think it would be made in? Would it be made in the 'adult', epic style of LotR (book & movies) or in the style of the book? If it was made in the style of the book what do you think the reaction of those who only knew the movies would be? I've lost count of the number of people who have said that leaving out Tom Bombadil was right because of the 'tweeness' of the episode (which is an opinion I've never agreed with btw) but can anyone really see the cockney Trolls & the Tra-la-la-lallying Elves producing and don't give me the old 'film is a different medium - we're not talking about presentation but about content.

Now then, davem, you know as well as anyone else that if/when PJ makes a film of The Hobbit he will do as he pleases in what he puts on screen. There are already Cockney Orcs in his LotR films so Cockney trolls won't be any problem. And I can easily see him turn the 'Tra-la-la-lallying' into a more sinister, dark form of Elvish humour.

Now from what I've heard people said it was OK to leave out Tom because the episode wasn't necessary to the story. And then I've heard so many people say 'but it took the magic away!' - films have a great deal of concern with plot and action (at least the LotR films did, I'm not including Mike Leigh films in that statement ) so they will tend to be like that. And how many of us have gripes with the films for dropping magic in favour of action? That's what would happen if we dropped The Hobbit from the Legendarium and just relied on the bare facts about the story.

If PJ made the film and had to change the 'tone' to fit in with the tone of the LotR films then it isn't the fault of The Hobbit. Those who have read The Hobbit before the films will retain their original impressions, and I daresay there are very few people who found any difficulty in making the transition from The Hobbit to LotR.

I wasn't going to argue any further...Next birthday davem's presentses will be a nice set of wooden spoons.