Canon: what ARE we babbling about?

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by davem

What interests me in this debate is that when I'm challenged on anything I say & can offer proof & evidence for it that's never acknowledged - like your point on the 'exact' match between the geography of TH & LotR - are you going to acknowledge that what I said about the geography of TH & LotR being only similar was correct?

Ah, you have been known to sidestep a few issues yourself, sir. As to this geography question, you again fail to give the full context.

Originally Posted by HoME 6

The present text of The Hobbit, deriving from corrections made in 1965 and first published in 1966, here introduces an element from The Lord of the Rings but fails to harmonise the two geographies. This highly uncharacteristic lapse is no doubt to be attributed simply to the haste with which my father worked under the extreme pressure imposed on him in 1965.

[...]

My father was greatly concerned to harmonise Bilbo's journey with the geography of The Lord of the Rings, especially in respect of the distance and time taken: in terms of The Lord of the Rings Gandalf, Bilbo, and the Dwarves took far too long, seeing that they were mounted (see Karen Fonstad's discussion in The Atlas of Middle-earth, p. 97). But he never brought this work to a definitive solution.

I can, if you like, cite other instances in which Tolkien made efforts to harmonize TH with LotR. You would disqualify TH because of an oversight, one of the "many defects, minor and major", which Tolkien owned in the foreword to LotR?

It seems clear to me that Tolkien's many efforts to harmonize the texts shows that he did not regard TH as an unrelated sideshow that "wasn't really" set in M-e.

And speaking of sidestepping...

Originally Posted by davem

What belongs in the Sil are those writings which conform to it, in mood, tone & consistency.

Do you, by chance, hold public office?

EDIT:

Originally Posted by davem

Dwarves (as Tolkien said they are based on Grimm not in his own Naugrim

Can you show me, outside of reference to this letter, how the dwarves of TH are appreciably different from the dwarves of LotR? Or the Sil, for that matter, in which Dwarves as individual characters hardly appear at all?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mr Underhill

For if you are bound and determined to exclude The Hobbit from your conception of the Legendarium, it is your Middle-earth that is diminished, not mine -- a fruitless victory indeed, I should think. And little more than an intellectual exercise, I might add

This is the statement of today which had me nodding most. It is indeed an intellectual exercise to seek to exclude The Hobbit; whether it is an emotional, heartfelt reaction that is being expressed here I do not know, but if it is, then I should rather take this than an intellectual exercise which actually spoils my enjoyment of Middle-earth.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

And I am suggesting that your reasons for saying it belongs outside the Legendarium are based on a faulty assumption that only linear, logically consistent lines are meaningful in literary creation. TH was the start of something. That something might have ended up somewhat different from its genesis, but to say that TH does not belong with or 'inside' the Legendarium is to force a particular form of relationship on the works, one which denies or overlooks or denigrates the illogic nature of literary creation.

You have articulated the random nature of 'magic' in literature here. And I agree that this is what I think happened in the creation of first The Hobbit and then LotR. It's right that you can't force a relationship on the works. They do work together though, despite being diverse, and Tolkien appreciated the relationship, despite his perfectionism.

Originally Posted by davem

TH was not written to be part of the Legendarium (as LotR was) so should it be included?

LotR was not intended to be part of the legendarium, it was intended to be the sequel to the Hobbit! It then became part of the legendarium, just as the Hobbit did.

Originally Posted by davem

It does mean we will read LotR in a different way. Everything you give from TH as 'necessary' to an understanding of LotR, can be countered by things in it which will cause confusion & perhaps break the spell - the Trolls, the 'Elves of Rivendell', Beorn's animals. The only way you seem to be able to account for them is by some wild theory that Bilbo's account was exagerated to such an extent that in large part what he says is completely wrong & untrustworthy.

No. I had no problem whatsoever moving on from The Hobbit to LotR. Nothing struck me as odd, and I had to create no theory.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

That something might have ended up somewhat different from its genesis, but to say that TH does not belong with or 'inside' the Legendarium is to force a particular form of relationship on the works, one which denies or overlooks or denigrates the illogic nature of literary creation. It also assumes that you can fully and completely identify "a Legendarium", which is also false.

From On Fairy Stories:

(The sub-creator) makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it what he relates is ''true': it accords with the laws of that world.[/QUOTE]

The Elves, Trolls, Dwarves, etc of TH do not accord with the 'laws' of the Legendarium. Therefore they do not belong there.

Originally Posted by Mr U

I can, if you like, cite other instances in which Tolkien made efforts to harmonize TH with LotR. You would disqualify TH because of an oversight, one of the "many defects, minor and major", which Tolkien owned in the foreword to LotR?

This is fascinating. I state that the geography of TH does not match with that of LotR. You quote a passage that confirms my statement & somehow that proves me wrong! The very effort required to make TH fit - which CT states he failed to do - shows that it was never fully or successfullly integrated - which is what I've been saying all along - though I suppose this also proves that I'm wrong as it shows I'm again right. What Tolkien realised, clearly is that the more he attempted to make TH fit the more he realised it wouldn't, so he simply gave up on it.

Can you show me, outside of reference to this letter, how the dwarves of TH are appreciably different from the dwarves of LotR? Or the Sil, for that matter, in which Dwarves as individual characters hardly appear at all?

So its ok for you to dismiss any of Tolkien's writings that don't 'suit'? You can really see the Naugrim of the First Age pulling out concealed clarinets & double bases & singing a comic song about doing the washing up? Perhaps that's how they psyched themselves up to dispatch Thingol?

Originally Posted by Lalwende

They do work together though, despite being diverse, and Tolkien appreciated the relationship, despite his perfectionism.

No, Tolkien (wrongly) saw the existence of TH as a fait a compli - which is the reason for so many abortive attempts to make it fit. Also for his regret over its style & content.

LotR was not intended to be part of the legendarium, it was intended to be the sequel to the Hobbit! It then became part of the legendarium, just as the Hobbit did.

No, LotR was intended to be part of the Legendarium. The sequel to TH, the 'New Hobbit' wasn't so intended, but by the time it had become LotR it was intentionally part of the Legendarium. In short, it was only when it had broken away from the fairy story world of TH in Tolkien's mind (to the extent that he had become so uncomfortable with TH that he had to re-write Riddles in the Dark & completely change Gollum's character) & become part of the Legendarium that TH caused him so many problems & so much 'stress'. The sad thing is that because of LotR taking on that role he became dissatisfied with TH. It lost something in Tolkien's mind (hence the re-writing) because he (erroniously imo) felt it had to be put in the service of LotR. Poor Bilbo, say I..

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by davem

What Tolkien realised, clearly is that the more he attempted to make TH fit the more he realised it wouldn't, so he simply gave up on it.

So you're saying that even though the geography of TH and LotR are in intention exactly the same, the fact that Tolkien overlooked the discrepancy makes TH "not Middle-earth"? Okay, now let's return to that Sil question and have you provide a list of the "Legitimate Sil Texts According to davem" that passes that test.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

So you're saying that even though the geography of TH and LotR are in intention exactly the same, the fact that Tolkien overlooked the discrepancy makes TH "not Middle-earth"?

No, I'm saying they're not the same, because TH was an unconnected fairy story written for his children & 'the Silmarils were in his heart'. I'm saying that fairy story used parts of the Legendarium for background, to 'add historical depth'. That's why he had so many problems making it fit. The 'intention' you refer to arose after the fact. He felt he had to try & make it fit because rather than seeing it as a fairy story & settling for giving the 'true' account in LotR he decided that he had to incorporate the fairy story into the Legendarium as well.

Okay, now let's return to that Sil question and have you provide a list of the "Legitimate Sil Texts According to davem" that passes that test...
The Legendarium that you think TH doesn't fit into is vapor -- it doesn't exist.

I've said - all the Legendarium writings that were written as part of the Legendarium 'pass the test' - its not a fixed thing, but an evolving process - something that my 'opponents' here keep repeating without apparently understanding what it means. That doesn't include things that were not written as part of it but which Tolkien attempted to make part of it & could only do by eviscerating them & making them into something they were never meant to be. Does no-one get that the changes to TH actually spoiled it - when seen in its own right? He couldn't alter it sufficiently to make it fit the Legendarium, but he could (& did), take away its 'innocence' by putting it into the service of something greater. The changes to TH (principally the changes to Gollum in Riddles in the Dark) don't fit the spirit of TH - they're only seen as an 'improvement' when it is read in the light of LotR. All those changes did was spoil TH without (as JRRT & CT acknowledge) doing the necessary job & successfully fitting it into the Legendarium. I'd suggest a reading of the Annotated Hobbit for the original version of TH. Few objective readers would consider the changes an improvement - if it is seen, as intended, as a story in its own right.

Oh, & can I take it that you accept my point about the Dwarves?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

He felt he had to try & make it fit because rather than seeing it as a fairy story & settling for giving the 'true' account in LotR he decided that he had to incorporate the fairy story into the Legendarium as well.

Yes, Tolkien incorporated it into the Legendarium.

I'm going to have to find you more housework to do.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by davem

as JRRT & CT acknowledge

Gotta call you out on this again. "But I should not change much." You continue to portray JRRT as disowning TH as an M-e story when the bulk of the evidence shows that he considered it an essential part of his M-e mythology.

So would you throw out all post-late-1930's work on the Sil, seeing as how it became "infected" at that point by the influence of TH, and later LotR? You say you acknowledge the evolving nature of the legendarium but for some reason refuse to admit that evolution included TH.

Originally Posted by davem

Oh, & can I take it that you accept my point about the Dwarves?

That's a big negatory. It's like reading about the Battle of Agincourt and then deducing that humans would never come up with Saturday Night Live. It would be out of character. You don't think a dwarf ever played an instrument or sang a comic song?

Anywho, this is getting more than a little repetitive. You are welcome to your Hobbit-free legendarium as far as I'm concerned.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I'm going to have to find you more housework to do.

LOL!

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

What interests me in this debate is that when I'm challenged on anything I say & can offer proof & evidence for it that's never acknowledged - like your point on the 'exact' match between the geography of TH & LotR - are you going to acknowledge that what I said about the geography of TH & LotR being only similar was correct?

At the time, I was not in a position to either challenge or concede your point. Having now reviewed the discussion of the point in Karen Wyn Fonstad's Atlas of Middle-earth, I will concede "virtually identical".

The only major discrepancy involves the distance between the rushing river and the clearing in which Bilbo met the Trolls (which Mister Underhill has addressed). Otherwise, the difference in journey time can be easily accounted for by the fact that Bilbo and the Dwarves were in unfamilar territory, low on rations and not being guided by a Ranger. That hardly seems sufficient grounds on which to base the proposition that the geographies of LotR and TH are merely "similar". They are virtually identical. Tolkien intended that they be identical and I am happy to accept them as such.

In any event, would discrepancies between LotR and Tolkien's Silm writings lead you to reject one of them? There are many discrepancies within the Silm writings (Galadriel's history, for example). Yet, it seems that you would warmly welcome all of them into the Legendarium, while leaving TH standing wretchedly at the door.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I had no problem whatsoever moving on from The Hobbit to LotR. Nothing struck me as odd, and I had to create no theory.

Ditto.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Anywho, this is getting more than a little repetitive. You are welcome to your Hobbit-free legendarium as far as I'm concerned.

Amen to that!