New Tolkien Books:updates

[davem]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

On a "gut level", I've personally felt this way for some time, although with no special "proof". I am also assuming most people would disagree. Despite the obvious disparities in tone, detail, etc between LotR and Hobbit, I have always felt that the Hobbit was connected with the Legendarium from the very beginning.

I'd like to see it too - I tend to go with CT & Flieger & count it very much as 'secondary' literature, not quite outside the Legendarium, but not a central part of it either. The idea that it started out as part of the Legendarium is clearly false, as up to that point the Legendarium ended with the fall of Morgoth at the end of what became The First Age (well, unless you want to include the Eriol/Aelfwine stuff about how the tales were transmitted. The Third Age didn't exist as a concept when TH was written.

Now, if he's arguing that Tolkien wanted it to be part of the Legendarium, I'd agree - why else would he have attempted a more 'grown up' version in the 60's?

Of course, it depends how precisely, or loosely, you define 'Legendarium'. I think I could make a 'good case' that Smith is part of the Legendarium (or, as anyone who knows me at all will know, an equally 'good case' that Smith had nothing at all to do with it.)

Anyway, its out next week, so we'll be able to see how 'good' Rateliff's case actually is....

[Child of the 7th Age]

Although I instinctively prefer the Hobbit as we now have it with either the original or revised Riddles chapter, I would be curious to see the scraps of this grown up version. Tolkien gave up on that before the group reached Rivendell, so he obviously felt something wasn’t working.

Regarding how much and to what extent the Hobbit is tied to the Legendarium, I feel it’s not an “either/or” but "how much" and "when". Those same terms could even be applied to the LotR, although in the latter case it happened at some point during the initial composition/revisions.

Unless Rateliff has some evidence we’ve never seen or some way of slipping inside the author’s head, it would be extremely difficult to make an argument that in 1928-1932, when Tolkien told stories to his children, he consciously had a later age of the Legendarium in mind. If Rateliff could “prove” that point, it would turn a lot of accepted truths upside down. Still, the creation of the Hobbit was not confined to those few years, but was a gradual process beginning in 1928 (or before) and going all the way into the fifties when he did his Riddle revisions, possibly even to the sixties if you count the aborted “adult” revision none of us have seen. At some point in that lengthy creative process, the Hobbit was pulled in. My feeling, based on absolutely nothing other than instinct, says sooner rather than later. In that sense, the Hobbit was little different from LotR. In neither case did the author know from the beginning that he was dealing with the Legendarium. When he recognized what had happened to his hobbit sequel, he must have been acutely, even uncomfortably aware, of what this meant for the "original" tale.

As you mention, there is some early indication he was already thinking beyond the First Age. The origins of Aelfwine go back to a poem published in 1924, and Tolkien was definitely starting to think in terms of “later ages” with his work on Aelfwine, the Lost Road, and Numenor in 1936 (to some extent revisions of that earlier poem). This was the same time he worked on and submitted the maps for Hobbit. These were the ones showing the lands between the Misty Mountains and Mirkwood. I’ve always wondered if the whole process of both the LotR and the Hobbit both being pulled into the Legendarium wasn’t expressed through concrete geography, the problem of establishing a “mental map” of Middle Earth, as much as through abstract thinking. In any case, it will be interesting to see what he’s come up with and see how convincing it is. And I admit I am sympathetic and hope that I will not be disappointed!

[davem]

Well, just had one of those annoying experiences - Waterstones have volume 1 on the shelves, but I have the book on order from Amazon. Looks interesting - matte dustjacket like the recent Tolkien hardbacks, few illustrations. Didn't have time for a proper look, unfortunately.

[Mithalwen]

Amazon tells me I must wait another week for my copy but not why

[Aiwendil]

Child: Thanks for the link. I've been looking forward to Mr. Baggins for a long time (actually I've always been rather more excited about this than about CoH). I also find Rateliff's claim very interesting. It has been my feeling as well that The Hobbit is a veritable piece of the Legendarium; actually, it seems to me that it is a 'major work', to be classed with LotR and the Silmarillion rather than with 'Giles' and 'Roverandom'. Sometimes I wonder if my view has to do with the fact that The Hobbit was my first glimpse of Middle-earth and I still tend to think of LotR as a sequel. In any case, I'm eager to see what Rateliff has to say.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Aiwendil,

That is my hope as well.

______________

Concerning the UK delivery situation... I don't know why but UK Amazon has this ominous note on their screen for volume I of history of the hobbit:

Availability: Usually dispatched within 4 to 6 weeks.

I am thinking this is a mistake and they just haven't updated their listing. Just to be sure, I ordered several days ago from a smaller seller who promised to ship immediately.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

I am thinking this is a mistake and they just haven't updated their listing. Just to be sure, I ordered several days ago from a smaller seller who promised to ship immediately.

Well, I've just checked my order & it says:

Delivery #1: Dispatching Soon We are preparing these items for dispatch and this part of your order cannot be cancelled or changed.

Another case of Harper Collins underestimating demand??

[Child of the 7th Age]

Another case of Harper Collins underestimating demand??

You may be right, though it may be UK Amazon not locking down enough copies in advance? The smaller marketplace shops are making a point of saying that they can ship immediately.

[davem]

Rateliff mentions in the interview:

Q: I find myself intrigued by your claim of the strong connections between The Hobbit and Silmarillion. Care to provide any examples, or do I have to wait for publication?
Well, there's the mention of Beren and Luthien in the draft of Chapter One, for starters. The wizard says they don't need to worry about seeking revenge on the Necromancer because Beren and Tinuviel have already thrown down his dark tower. That's a pretty explicit reference to the events of 'The Lay of Leithian', and a pretty good indication to me that Bilbo's world and their world were thought of as one and the same from the very beginning.

Well, to me the mention of Beren & Luthien is hardly a 'pretty good indication' that TH was intended to be part of the Legendarium from the start. If we take a reference to B&L as 'evidence' of that, then we have to take similar references to 'Faerie in the West' as evidence that Roverandom was intended to take place in the same world as TH & LotR. Without LotR TH would have no connection to the Legendarium beyond a few shared names. All the reference to B&L indicates is that Tolkien made use of the Legendarium as it then existed to provide background for the story. And a more significant point is that Tolkien removed the reference.

[davem]

I've got it. Only had chance for a quick flick through so far. Not impressed with the quality to be honest. It doesn't have sewn in signatures, but the pages are glued together like a paperback & stuck in a hard cover.

And, believe it or not, this 476 page book doesn't have an Index. The only reference I can find to Beren & Luthien so far is that they 'broke his (the Necromancer's) power'

[Mithalwen]

Mine arrived this morning but I only got as far as the intro before life got in the way.

The binding is disappointing becasue although teh cloth back will endure better than paper it does make a hb first ed relatively ephemeral ...

since this is effectively one work in 2 volumes I humbly suggest that as with LOTR the index will be in PT 2? Inconvenient in the interim I admit, but not unreasonable.