Canon: what ARE we babbling about?

[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!

[HerenIstarion]

We may cite lot of things at each other, and both sides may have their points, but the gist of the debate seems to come down to the following:

1. TH was not originally conceived by Tolkien as part of Legendarium
2. Later (and as soon as chapter 3, I'd argue, even if it was merely for 'depth'), Tolkien changed his mind and made some effort to incorporate it into Legendarium.

Both statements are true, and davem is perfectly right in pointing out clause 1 at us, but than it is a question of 'authorial intent' or 'reader's freedom' we have our noses pressed against.

I believe that 2 has supremacy over 1 in this case. davem seems to hold the opposite view, that is, 'Tolkien made a mistake in shifting his positon from 1 to 2'.

For additional support to my own view, apart from things already said, it may be stated that many things which form essential part of LoTR were born in The Hobbit: the Ring and Gollum to name the most important.

The very geography of LoTR and its much discussed discrepancies with that of the Hobbit is there at all thanks to TH. There would be no Erebor, no Dain Ironfoot and his conversation with Sauron's messanger, no Gimli in the fellowship, no Galmdring of Gondolin in Gandalf's hand on the bridge in Khazad-dûm, no elated legend of Azog and Thrain if some things were not originally parts of the Hobbit.

True, it is not essential to have read the Hobbit to understand and enjoy LoTR, but I think LotR would be poorer if there were no TH (leaving aside the obvious fact there would be no LoTR at all if there were no TH)

The very choice of names for the dwarves and Gandalf points in opposite direction - TH was less of a fairy tale from it's very beginning, than, say, Roverandom. Fantasia? Let it be termed so, but if fantasia takes part there, it is part of it.

Apart from all elaborate explanations we keep coming up with to davem's dissatisfaction , the most perfect one comes out of LoTR itself (I doubt it was conciously put in there, but it is the best):

It became a fireside-story for young hobbits; and eventually Mad Baggins, who used to vanish with a bang and a flash and reappear with bags of jewels and gold, became a favourite character of legend and lived on long after all the true events were forgotten.

Do you expect much of 'Mad Baggins' type of story? Following Sam, I can imagine fire-side storyteller groping for Troll-names and coming out with Bill. (You may point out that 'both TH and LoTR were written down as parts of the Red Book', and thus disarm this theory, but than, I'll retreat back to authorship: it is Mad Baggins who wrote down his own authobiography, not a college of writers including half-transparent Ring-bearer (who have 'grown wise' according to a Maia), half-elven wiseman and another Maia). Besides, if you do point that out, you lose - if they both were parts of the same imaginary book, they are both parts of ME

Yet, kidding apart, the real question is, did Tolkien make a mistake? However I may respect davem (and Flieger, whose work was introduced to my attention and brought me much enjoyement thanks to aforesaid davem), I believe they are making a mistake, not Tolkien

As I never was one for democracy in matters of opinion (that is, majority does not have casting vote here), I'm forced to conclude that this particular debate comes to a draw and both sides stand unconvinced, though.

[davem]

Ok - I'm happy to leave things here. If nothing else I've exposed the serious 'differences' between TH & LotR/The Sil writings, & shown how much has to be put down to Bilbo's 'excentircity'. H-i's 'Mad Baggins' account simply confirms to me that at best TH can be seen as a Hobbit 'fairy story' (with its basis in actual events long left behind). A fairy story within Middle-earth - yet because of that I cannot see how we can depend on what we find there - however charmed we might be by it.

That's my last word - others can have the last last word if they like.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

That's my last word - others can have the last last word if they like.

OK then.

Originally Posted by davem

If nothing else I've exposed the serious 'differences' between TH & LotR/The Sil writings, & shown how much has to be put down to Bilbo's 'excentircity'.

You see, that's how this whole debate started - with my post (in response to obloquy) stating how I did not see the need to explain the more whimsical aspects of The Hobbit by reference to eccentricity or exaggeration on Bilbo's part. The tone is different, but I am happy to accept Bilbo's tale as a pretty much accurate account of his adventure. I am happy to accept talking purses in a world of talking swords and Silent Watchers. I am happy to accept Beorn's animals in a world of sentient foxes, spiders and (non-Maia, in my view) eagles. And I am happy to accept Stone Giants in a world of Orcs and Trolls. I don't see any problem with merry-making Elves and Dwarves. They cannot be serious and noble/dour and gritty all of the time. I am content to put the Troll's names down to translation and the minor discrepancies in the geography (so minor as to escape my attention without them being pointed out) don't really bother me.

Now, that may just be me being nostalgic. If that's the case, then so be it. It works for me. I would rather have the magic of enchantment over the realism of cold academic debate any day.

And the same goes for Balrog's wings and pointy Elvish ears ...