Canon: what ARE we babbling about?

[HerenIstarion]

This thread is made following mark 12:30's bidding. It was originally posted by her here, and is reposted with the goal of making a poll out of it.

I suppose she'll post introduction in the post to follow. Or else she may not, as the entries are self-explaining, so plunge in, folks

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

This thread is made following mark 12:30's bidding.

Bidding! Nay, gentle H-I, your offer was kind and generous, and happily accepted. Thank you. I am grateful.

[Encaitare]

I'm not really sure what I consider canon, so I am not voting just yet. But I just wanted to say I'm glad this has at last been poll-itized. (And also that option 5 makes me giggle, ie: "The Barrow-Wight told me it's canon, so it must be so!")

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Encaitare

I'm not really sure what I consider canon, so I am not voting just yet. But I just wanted to say I'm glad this has at last been poll-itized. (And also that option 5 makes me giggle, ie: "The Barrow-Wight told me it's canon, so it must be so!")

I'd be surprised if the Wight himself woudn't defer to Mister Underhill, lindil, and Sharku...

[obloquy]

The Canon is built from all extant writings. It contains all concepts that do not conflict with either tone or letter of the rest of the canon: for example, we cannot consider The Hobbit strictly canonical due to anomalies (or abandoned ideas). With regard to The Hobbit, it is important to view the story as an embellished or fanciful adventure novel from Bilbo's perspective. When a conflict does arise, the latest writing rules, unless the concepts presented therein are underdeveloped to the point that they create irreconcilable holes in the established mythos. In which case we must consider the ideas to be possible alternatives and investigate the ramifications of accepting them as canonical.



IMO

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by obloquy

With regard to The Hobbit, it is important to view the story as an embellished or fanciful adventure novel from Bilbo's perspective.

Why? I have never gone along with this idea that Bilbo must have exagerrated the tale of his adventure. Why can we not simply take it at face value (accepting, of course, the changes made to his account of his encounter with Gollum, as explained in LotR)? Why are Giants, for example, merely products of Bilbo's overactive imagination when the Stone Trolls and Dragon are clearly not? Why should we dismiss Bilbo's tale as a collection of febrile ramblings when we take the account written by Frodo and Sam as gospel? Why should Bilbo's account of his own story be considered fanciful, when his collation of Elvish history is taken as accurate?

Of course, you can view The Hobbit in that way if you wish, but it's not compulsory to do so. Nor is it unreasonable to interpret it as a faithful account.

As for the poll, Canon is defined in the dictionary (in this context) as:

... the recognised genuine works of a particular author; a list of these.

Strictly speaking, that includes only the works which Tolkien himself completed and which were published in his lifetime. At a stretch, it might also include his unfinished tales as per the state that they were in at the time of his death and as subsequently published. But it would exclude The Silmarillion, which was edited by his son, and his letters, notes and the like.

Unfortunately, there's no option which precisely matches that, so I'll go with the "published during his lifetime" option, ie his completed works.

Edit: Actually, I'll go with the second option, although I would exclude The Silmarillion as edited/adapted by Christopher Tolkien.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

Why? I have never gone along with this idea that Bilbo must have exagerrated the tale of his adventure. Why can we not simply take it at face value (accepting, of course, the changes made to his account of his encounter with Gollum, as explained in LotR)? Why are Giants, for example, merely products of Bilbo's overactive imagination when the Stone Trolls and Dragon are clearly not? Why should we dismiss Bilbo's tale as a collection of febrile ramblings when we take the account written by Frodo and Sam as gospel? Why should Bilbo's account of his own story be considered fanciful, when his collation of Elvish history is taken as accurate?

Verlyn Flieger addressed this question at Birmingham. The problem The Hobbit presents is that it is full of incidents that don't 'fit' with the tone of the rest of the canon/Legendarium. The 'cockney' trolls, with their talking purse, the 'tra-la-la-lally' Elves, don't 'belong' in the world of LotR, let alon of the Sil. TH is much closer to a story like Roverandom - a children's story which made use of the Legendarium as background. The only way it can be made to 'fit' is to construct some quite elaborate 'explanations' - the most effective of which, I suppose, is that Tolkien the 'translator' took the contents of the Red Book relating to Bilbo & deliberately re-told them in a way suitable for children. But that begs the question 'Why do that?' Flieger said that she didn't much like The Hobbit as a story & that she didn't consider it part of the story.

Personally, I love the book, but I can see her point. Those trolls are not 'Middle-earth' trolls, the Rivendell 'Elves' have clearly strayed in from 'Goblin Feet' & don't belong in Middle-earth. I think it was Brian Rosebury who stated that The Hobbit 'changes' its tone with the appearance of Elrond - others have stated that it begins with Gollum's appearance, & certainly the story from that point becomes more serious & darker in tone. But, for all I love the book I'm coming more & more to agree with Flieger.

Now, TH is still 'canon' in the sense of being a book Tolkien wrote & published, but is it part of the Middle-earth 'canon'? Well, only if Roverandom (& Goblin feet) is. Actually, I'd say Smith has a greater claim to inclusion in the Legendarium than TH....

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

The 'cockney' trolls, with their talking purse, the 'tra-la-la-lally' Elves, don't 'belong' in the world of LotR, let alon of the Sil.

In your and Ms Flieger's opinion.

They belong in my Middle-earth.

[mark12_30]

davem, I disagree. The idea that Elrond is too high and lofty to sing Tra-La-La-Lally is like saying Fordim is too sophisticated to write satire. I just don't buy it.

Take any high-fallutin' professor and set him (or her) in circumstances that bring out their inner glee, and you get child-like behavior. What was it Sam said about Galadriel? High and far-off as a mountain, merry as any lass with daisies in her hair? If Elrond can't crack a joke or join in a drinking game, then he's as grumpy as the movies make him out to be. I don't buy it. Six thousand years old, and he's forgotten how to laugh and sing simple songs?

There's also (Tra-La-La-Lally) the fact that The Valley Song is obviously made up on the fly. For fun. Because there are dwarves to tease. I can imagine more than one elf groaning, "Egads, he wrote it down!"

On trolls: If Sam's accent can differ from Pippin's, then one neighborhood of trolls can be more cockney than another. And one race of trolls can talk while the others are mute. (I'm not convinced that Mordor-trolls aren't chatty anyway-- I think that's a PJ-ism.)

What else? Some of the early wyrms (in the Sil) had no wings. Smaug has wings. Egads, a contradiction! No. Two different kinds of dragons. Just like there were different kinds of orcs; different kinds of hobbits; different kinds of men.

THe tone of the books differ-- because Bilbo differs from Frodo, and one story differs from the other. Bilbo's expedition wasn't about the end of the old ways, departure of the elves and the passing of the third age. It was about a treasure hunt.

[davem]

Helen
Ok, that might account for it, but as I said:

The only way it can be made to 'fit' is to construct some quite elaborate 'explanations'

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by davem

Helen
Ok, that might account for it, but as I said: The only way it can be made to 'fit' is to construct some quite elaborate 'explanations'

I don't see those as elaborate in the least. I think they're pretty simplistic. "Diversity." "The mountain and the squirrel had a quarrel."

I think the whole "tone" idea is overdone.

[davem]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

I don't see those as elaborate in the least. I think they're pretty simplistic.

Ok, put TH on one side. The trolls, the Elves, Elrond, all the creatures & individuals who appear in The Sil writings & in LotR are consistent in their behaviour (no trolls in Beleriand or in Moria are called Bill, Tom or Bert - & if they were we'd be shocked!). Its only in TH that their behaviour differs so extremely. Not one 'Tra-la-lally' is heard in the whole of the Legendarium apart from in TH.

I accept that in the secondary world of M-e Bilbo found the Ring more or less as described & had more or less the experiences he had (because LotR states that), but if we're speaking of TH as part of the M-e 'canon', it is out of place, & while it can be read as a wonderfully entertaining story in its own right, it doesn't 'fit' in with the epic, tragic, mood of the rest of the Legendarium. Personally, I cannot see the Elrond (or Glorfindel) of The Sil or LotR 'Tra-la-la-lallying'. TH was not intended to be part of the Legendarium - & neither, at first, was its sequel. If it had been I don't believe the cockney trolls & the 'Tra-la-la-lallying' Elves would have seen the light of day.

TH is a book I love, but 'Middle-earth' it depicts is not the Middle-earth of the rest of the Legendarium - because it was never intended to be.

I have to stress that I consider TH to be part of the Tolkien canon, & that as a story set in its own secondary world, it works. Its only when it is read as part of the Legendarium, on equal terms with The Sil writings & LotR, that it 'fails'.

[mark12_30]

We've got a hobbit named "Sam"; do we lose sleep over that? Or over his "Bless me, Mister Frodo" even though there's no church?

"it doesn't 'fit' in with the epic, tragic, mood of the rest of the Legendarium. "

So by your argument "THe Adventures of Tom Bombadil" isn't canon either. In order to be canon, the mood must be tragic? Then we throw out Sam's Oliphaunt, and his Troll Song-- it's absurd. Let's cut out "The Man In the Moon Stayed Up Too Late." Then we'll throw out Bombadil. And Pippin really must grow up and get serious. Boromir's sarcasm-- out. And Gandalf is not allowed any more fireworks-- they are beneath his dignity.

This tone thing has gone too far. Nobody in Middle-Earth is allowed to have fun. Including the Professor.

"Personally, I cannot see the Elrond (or Glorfindel) of The Sil or LotR 'Tra-la-la-lallying'."

I can. "Those were happier days."

[davem]

Originally Posted by Helen

So by your argument "THe Adventures of Tom Bombadil" isn't canon either. In order to be canon, the mood must be tragic? Then we throw out Sam's Oliphaunt, and his Troll Song-- it's absurd. Let's cut out "The Man In the Moon Stayed Up Too Late." Then we'll throw out Bombadil. And Pippin really must grow up and get serious. Boromir's sarcasm-- out. And Gandalf is not allowed any more fireworks-- they are beneath his dignity.

This tone thing has gone too far. Nobody in Middle-Earth is allowed to have fun. Including the Professor.

We're not talking (at least I'm not) about Hobbits (or the Hobbit poetry ot AoTB). We're talking about Elves (& Trolls) The (Rivendell) Elves in TH are not consistent with the rest of the Legendarium. Bombadil works because he is a 'unique' figure. Tolkien himself repeatedly stated he was uncomfortable with the 'tone' of TH. I'd suggest that this 'discomfort' was not due to TH as a story in its own right, but purely because it had been taken up into the Legendarium & it didn't fit. He only changed the Riddles in the Dark chapter to make it more consistent with LotR - not because the original version didn't work in the context of TH itself.

I can. "Those were happier days."

In the Council chapter her says he has lived through three Ages of the world & 'seen many defeats & many fruitless victories'. Given his history, including the 'loss' of his wife in terrible circumstances, I cannot imagine a 'Tra-la-la-laly' passing his lips.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by davem

In the Council chapter her says he has lived through three Ages of the world & 'seen many defeats & many fruitless victories'. Given his history, including the 'loss' of his wife in terrible circumstances, I cannot imagine a 'Tra-la-la-laly' passing his lips.

On the contrary. All the more reason to laugh, lest one be consumed with grief. And I think Elrond would be wise enough to know that. Gandalf was. "Be merry; we meet again." Glorfindel's horse had bells on his headstall; hardly a somber design.

Elves laugh. THey can be deadly; they can be merry. It's part of their charm.

"And Elves, sir! Elves here, and elves there! Some like kings, terrible and splendid; and some as merry as children."

Bilbo and Elrond in the Hall of FIre:

"I shall have to get my friend the Dunedain to help me. WHere is he?"

Elrond laughed. "He shall be found, " he said. "Then you two shall go into a corner and finish your task, and we will hear it and judge it before we end our merrymaking." Messengers were sent to find Bilbo's friend...

[davem]

We'll probably have to agree to disagree. No hard feelings - I hope.

I blame Obloquy for starting this

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mark12_30

So by your argument "THe Adventures of Tom Bombadil" isn't canon either. In order to be canon, the mood must be tragic? Then we throw out Sam's Oliphaunt, and his Troll Song-- it's absurd. Let's cut out "The Man In the Moon Stayed Up Too Late." Then we'll throw out Bombadil. And Pippin really must grow up and get serious. Boromir's sarcasm-- out. And Gandalf is not allowed any more fireworks-- they are beneath his dignity.

This tone thing has gone too far. Nobody in Middle-Earth is allowed to have fun. Including the Professor.

Here, here, Helen! Let me echo what SpM posted earlier.

I think we can get too carried away with defining what is consistent with "the Legendarium." That is all well and appropriate for discussion of the inner consistency of the mythology and for an individual opinion or interpretation of the matter.

However, as Helen implies, there are many other works by Tolkien which don't conform strictly to the mythology. But why should the mythology become the defining characteristic?

Going by traditional definitions that pertain to literary studies (for what that is worth), here's Dictionary.com's definition of canon:

A group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field: “the durable canon of American short fiction” (William Styron).

The works of a writer that have been accepted as authentic: the entire Shakespeare canon.

Time was (and this is back in Tolkien's day), canon meant things that a writer published in his lifetime. In fact, students were not allowed to write dissertations on writers still alive, as such a dissertation would be incomplete, the writer still capable of producing more.

This is, of course, just one approach. It is, however, one which acknowledges all works a writer produces, not just those which conform to a standard developed later in life or after death.

Notoriously, Tolkien's ideas about Middle-earth changed as he wrote. This is the important thing about him: he did not achieve--and possibly never aspired to--a standard of art which imitated that of the elves. Time is everywhere in his work. Never again would he write in exactly the same style as he did for his children in TH. But he still went on to include silly Tom Bombadil in LOtR and another group of poems. He did not entirely lose a sense of whimsy and silliness. 'Smith' and 'Leaf by Niggle' are his works even if they don't quite fit his foreward to LotR.

Writers do not have to be consistent. They just have to be entertaining. And imaginative. And, in the case of fantasy, darn good at depicting a perilous realm. Maybe one way of thinking about this is to acknowledge that for Tolkien, the perilous realm was more than just Middle earth. And more than just tragedy or epic. "prose romance' covers a great deal.

Frankly, I agree with SpM that The Silm, as a work pubished after Tolkien's death and substantively editted and revised by Christopher Tolkien, is the questionable work. Without Tolkien pere's imprimateur, it is the Silm that 'fails' (sic), not TH.

EDIT: Opps. Cross posting with davem. Yes, blame oblo. The next best thing to Canada.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Frankly, I agree with SpM that The Silm, as a work pubished after Tolkien's death and substantively editted and revised by Christopher Tolkien, is the questionable work. Without Tolkien pere's imprimateur, it is the Silm that 'fails' (sic), not TH.

I hope I answered your other points but I want to stress that I was referring to The Sil writings - ie the contents of HoMe, not to CT's 'reconstruction'.

However, as Helen implies, there are many other works by Tolkien which don't conform strictly to the mythology. But why should the mythology become the defining characteristic?

Because that's what we're talking about - not whether TH is a 'canonical' work in the sense of being something Tolkien wrote, but whether it 'fits' the Legendarium comfortably. Tolkien's 'discomfort' over its 'tone' implies he, at least, felt it didn't.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by davem

We'll probably have to agree to disagree. No hard feelings - I hope.

Meet you behind the hedge! Zounds! Avast!! Where'd that gauntlet go?? Fordie?? Fordie!! Gauntlet-THIEF! ... I am without a gauntlet.

Very well, a truce it is.

I blame Obloquy for starting this

Right-ho. Now, where's that barrage of flaming trout? Although, having been perch-slapped, that's quite as bad.

Originally Posted by Bb

the perilous realm was more than just Middle earth. And more than just tragedy or epic.

This makes good sense; IMO, I would rather include "The Man In the Moon Came Down too Soon" and exclude Christopher's liberties (in theory; I haven't set out to separate them yet nor am I sure I would find them!)

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien himself repeatedly stated he was uncomfortable with the 'tone' of TH. I'd suggest that this 'discomfort' was not due to TH as a story in its own right, but purely because it had been taken up into the Legendarium & it didn't fit. He only changed the Riddles in the Dark chapter to make it more consistent with LotR - not because the original version didn't work in the context of TH itself.

And shame on Tolkien for making those changes. It's like an old gaffer embarassed about escapades of his younger self, and attempting to rewrite the historical account. EDIT: Or police explanations about deaths in custody: it might be what they wished to have happened, but that is not an honest reflection of what truly happened. And somewhere along the way, someone or some text gets demonised.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by obloquy

The Canon is built from all extant writings. It contains all concepts that do not conflict with either tone or letter of the rest of the canon: for example, we cannot consider The Hobbit strictly canonical due to anomalies (or abandoned ideas). With regard to The Hobbit, it is important to view the story as an embellished or fanciful adventure novel from Bilbo's perspective.

Here was the departure from the discussion of canon to the discussion of tone and conflicts.

Saucie and I disagree that The Hobbit is any less canonical because it has a more whimsical style. Bilbo is just a more whimsical hobbit. Shall we imagine what LotR would have been like had it been penned entirely by Sam? Or Pippin? But though the tone would have been quite different, the tale would not have been less "MIddle-Earth", or less from "The Perilous Realm".

Edit: On the changes to The Hobbit: I think they were brilliant. It turns the whole thing into a living tale. "I have Bilbo's *original* version that he told the dwarves! Cool!"

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And shame on Tolkien for making those changes. It's like an old gaffer embarassed about escapades of his younger self, and attempting to change history.

Couldn't agree more. But if he hadn't made those changes TH would have been even less 'consistent' with the rest of the Legendarium than it is. It was never intended to be part of it & making it 'fit', once LotR had become part of The Sil, was one of Tolkien's major problems in the early stages of writing it. As he stated(letter19):

Mr Baggins began as a comic tale among conventional & inconsistent Grimms fairy tale dwarves & got drawn into the edge of it (the Sil)

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by davem

Couldn't agree more. But if he hadn't made those changes TH would have been even less 'consistent' with the rest of the Legendarium than it is. It was never intended to be part of it & making it 'fit', once LotR had become part of The Sil, was one of Tolkien's major problems in the early stages of writing it. As he stated(letter19):

It began to "fit" when Elrond entered the tale, and the swords were revealed as being from Gondolin. He couldn't keep the Sil out of the Hobbit even then-- any more than he could keep it out of Roverandom.

And if he had suceeded in completely separating TH from the Sil, then where would his Hobbit Sequel have ended up? LOTR began as a simple Hobbit sequel-- and got "drawn up".

[davem]

Originally Posted by Helen

It began to "fit" when Elrond entered the tale, and the swords were revealed as being from Gondolin. He couldn't keep the Sil out of the Hobbit even then-- any more than he could keep it out of Roverandom.

But the point is he was making use of the existing mythology as background - as in Roverrandom - not writing a new story within the Legendarium.

And if he had suceeded in completely separating TH from the Sil, then where would his Hobbit Sequel have ended up? LOTR began as a simple Hobbit sequel-- and got "drawn up".

I don't think his problem was 'completely separating TH from the Sil'. Once he had allowed LotR to become part of The Sil TH had to be made to work & integrated as well as possible. Having said that (& Eru forbid it should ever happen!) if TH was to disappear completely there would be nothing of import to the Legendarium lost by that. We have enough of Bilbo's story in LotR for that story to make sense.

The inconsistency of TH with the rest of the Legendarium nagged at him for a long time. It didn't just produce the alterations to TH itself but The Quest of Erebor as well.

[HerenIstarion]

But so far trouble had not come; and as Mr. Baggins was generous with his money, most people were willing to forgive him his oddities and his good fortune. He remained on visiting terms with his relatives (except, of course, the Sackville-Bagginses), and he had many devoted admirers among the hobbits of poor and unimportant families. But he had no close friends, until some of his younger cousins began to grow up.

I just can imagine younger cousins gaping at Bilbo and his stories, and him, in his turn, deliberately simplifying his adventures, making them less 'horrid' for youngsters' entertainment

(mind you, I had that impression prior to the release of the movies, where, I must admit, PJ grasped the idea wonderfully - the scene in Bilbo's party (Bilbo and children and story of the Trolls) was perfect)

Originally Posted by davem

if TH was to disappear completely there would be nothing of import to the Legendarium lost by that.

Can't agree less

1. Most of the readers would be lost (I for one - my Tolkien began with the Hobbit)
2. The possibility of publication of the Legendarium itself would be dubious

But these are reasons external, not to repeat things already said with regards to reasons internal, let me state my agreement with post #9

Or, simpler - the Hobbit is, more or less, autobiography, it's tone hasn't have to be as lofty as that of a chronicle LoTR is (what with the latter being filled in not only by hobbits, but Gandalfs and Elronds and the like), much less so as of a mythology Silmarillion is.

Story of a 'fracas' (I like that word ) in a bar:

1. (Autobiography) Listen, chaps, yesterday, I went to that bar, you know, Marty is a barholder, one with a blue oyester for a sign, and see, it was full of those shaven chaps in leather, and one of them, they called him Grubby or something, you know, kinda looked at me in a funny way, and than he kinda came over and tried to, dunno, sorta hug me, (heh, grubby is a good name, the way he grubs!) and, well, than I've hit him, and his buddies came over me, but I gave one of them, you know, what you chaps call my 'left hook' and he fell over, and than I've kicked another one in the ribs, and than Marty fired a gun, and than I was kinda knocked out and bah! I wake up in a Police station with all those shaven chaps lying around too! And I have this nasty cut behind my ear, don't remember getting it at all

2. (Chronicle) Yesterday, August 18, Mr. George Lashkhi, resident of Chughurety district, Tbilisi, Georgia, was spotted entering the public catering facility under the name of Blue Oyster run by Mr. Marty Smith, Esquire. Mr. Lashkhi was confronted there by Messers. Grubb, Grubb and Barrows, individuals who as reports say, essayed to harass Mr. Lashkhi. In the fracas following encounter of named citizens, three lamps were broken. Police arrived in time, as called for by Mr. Smith, and took all mentioned citizens into the custody.

3. (Myth) So it was that George the Lashkh entered the cursed inn of Blue Oyester, which lies southward of the Mighty Oak of the crossroads, and there coming behind him, Grubb the Smarmy, his brother Grubb the Barmy and their sister-son Barrows the Odious assailed him; and he vanished under the storm of blows. But he dealt them mighty blow of his left arm in return and retreated to the barstand. There he stood and gave way no more.
Then all the three swarmed against him, and they bridged the inn with their bodies, but encircled George the Lashkh as a gathering tide about a rock. There as the sun westered on the sixth hour, and the shadow of pine outside made the inn dark, George fell pierced with a venomed shard of glass in his head, and all his valour was vain; for the King's guards came, as treacherous innkeeper lead them in, piled George and his enemies in a heap onto their waggon and took them to King's dungeons

[davem]

H-I Brilliant stuff - as usual. But I can only reiterate my point. I LOVE THE HOBBIT!!! Its far & away one of my favouite books!

What I'm saying is that TH is not necessary to the Legendarium. The necessary information it contains is repeated in LotR. Flieger told us that her children have never read The Hobbit. They began with LotR (at age two apparently!) & have gone on to read some or all of the rest.

I believe that a reader who first encounters LotR & then goes on to the Silmarillion before reading TH will not be expecting anything like they get, & is more than likely to find that the cockney trolls & the 'tra-la-la-lallying' Elves will 'break the enchantment' for them.

Like you, I read TH first, & may not have read LotR without that experience. It still holds a special place in my heart, but it is not necessary to an understanding of LotR or the Legendarium as a whole & I'd question the extent to which it actually adds anything beyond a warm 'nostalgic' glow to the experience of readers who are already familiar with it. I wouldn't be without it as a work of Tolkien's - anymore than I'd be without Smith or Niggle. I just don't feel it adds anything to the Legendarium itself & for some readers it may actually detract from the 'reality' of the secondary world.

[Lalwendë]

The Hobbit definitely belongs in the canon/legendarium. I disagreed with what Verlyn Flieger said (davem knows this already ) but more later.

Firstly, regarding the 'tone' of The Hobbit. It is no more variant to the tone of LotR than the Sil is different. On a scale, we have The Hobbit (exuberant and vivid), LotR (epic, and in itself variant in tone), then The Sil (biblical and ponderous and difficult in the narrative sense). Considering that the creation of his work took up most of his life, it is no surprise at all that each work takes on a different tone. If Tolkien had produced reams of books then the changes might appear more gradually, but he published slowly so such differences are more obvious. The Hobbit was written by a younger man, a new father, while LotR was written by a middle aged man, secure in his profession, while the later writings were produced by a man contemplating the end of life. Of course they are all different in tone.

Consider also that Tolkien was fastidious, concerned with detail and this makes it more clear why he became disatisfied with The Hobbit at a later stage. That he did experience some regrets is nothing unusual for Tolkien, he expressed regrets about LotR - one of his letters stated that it was finished 'such as it is'; he was never satisfied that his work was perfect. I've often expressed my amazement that there were not many more inconsistencies and mistakes within the Legendarium. Tolkien had only reams of notes and his own capacious memory to assist him in ensuring that what he wrote was not contradictory. In any case, what he wrote in the Hobbit does work.

As to whether we have to construct complex arguments to support The Hobbit and what it contains - we don't. We have no more a complex reasoning to produce than we do to fit in other ideas such as Glorfindel appearing twice, or the changes in Galadriel's personality and where Celeborn came from.

Now to Flieger. She has recently written on how the works in the Legendarium have the 'conceit' of being translated from old documents. Presumably Tolkien was the translator, and we might expect all the works to have the same tone. But no. Firstly he would have widly differing source materials to work from (any Historian would realise the problems of source materials) and it does not consider when the translator was working - which parts did he translate when he was young, which when old for example. Did he do a 'straight' translation or a 'loaded' one? Which audience was he translating for?

So taking these things into consideration, the voices of the original writers are likely to be different. Bilbo narrates The Hobbit, Frodo, sam, Merry and Pippin the LotR, and the Elves the Sil. Now consider Bilbo. He is what we today would definitely term 'middle class'. Here is where Flieger displayed a lack of knowledge/awareness of the British class system in her argument, stating that Bilbo was Upper Class, representing the 'What Ho?' sporty type. No, Bilbo, like Tolkien, was middle class through and through, slightly patronising to the working class, and disparaging of the upper class. His nerves over serving up all his nice cake to the Dwarves and feeling all flustered and not wanting to appear 'rude' are perfectly middle-class (if there was radio in The Shire, he'd have been an avid listener of the Test Match ). This is who is narrating The Hobbit. He is akin to an older Daily Mail reader - not strident but quietly suspicious of things which may upset his comfortable routine. He is suspicious of 'foreigners', he thinks the effete Elves are a bit silly, and the trolls are 'uncouth'. Add to this that Bilbo loved to tell stories. This was his one great adventure, and he loved to tell people about it. Stories grow in the telling, and they alter, and he no doubt added colourful detail.

Flieger's argument used as a central thesis a point about the British class system that she had failed to understand. It also did not take into account whether the translator was working 'straight' or with an agenda.

Finally, we couldn't manage LotR without The Hobbit. Just one of the very good reasons for this is Gollum. Without having met him first and built up a feeling of both fear and pity for the creature, we do not have the same sense of him when we read LotR. When he finally catches up with Frodo we have already seen him with another Hobbit, we would not have that frisson of excitement and fear and wonder.

I know davem's going to argue with me...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Because that's what we're talking about - not whether TH is a 'canonical' work in the sense of being something Tolkien wrote, but whether it 'fits' the Legendarium comfortably.

But that's not what "canon" means. Something is "canon" if it is part of the recognised works (which I would interpret as published works) of the author. In the context of Middle-earth this includes anything within Tolkien's recognised works concerning Middle-earth. It does not have to "fit" the style or mood of the other works in order to be canon, and neither does it have to develop the "story".

Originally Posted by davem

Having said that (& Eru forbid it should ever happen!) if TH was to disappear completely there would be nothing of import to the Legendarium lost by that.

I simply don't get this. What is the "Legendarium" without the detail? Little of import would be lost by cutting out much of the detail of LotR. What does Bombadil add to the story? How does it further the tale to have a detailed description of Lothlorien or the plains of Rohan? No, Bilbo's tale of his adventure is as much a part of the "Legendarium" as Legolas' account of events at Pelargir and the description of Sam's temptation by the Ring. Otherwise where do we draw the line? If we were to start picking and choosing what is "necessary" to further the "Legendarium", there is a danger that we would be left with very little indeed. In fact, one might argue that this is exactly what happened to Tolkien's "Silmarillion writings" with the publication of The Silmarillion.

HerenIstarion - you are a master of analogy. But with this one, you have excelled even your own high standards! It illustrates the distinction between pertinent facts and entertaining detail perfectly.

Originally Posted by davem

Flieger told us that her children have never read The Hobbit. They began with LotR (at age two apparently!) & have gone on to read some or all of the rest.

I must say that I feel rather sorry for Ms Flieger's children ...

[davem]

Originally Posted by SPM

But that's not what "canon" means. Something is "canon" if it is part of the recognised works (which I would interpret as published works) of the author. In the context of Middle-earth this includes anything within Tolkien's recognised works concerning Middle-earth. It does not have to "fit" the style or mood of the other works in order to be canon, and neither does it have to develop the "story".

So is Roverandom part of the Middle-earth canon? Roverandom had just as much of a basis in the Silmarillion mythology as The Hobbit when it was first written. I think you'd have a major problem fitting talking toy dogs & moon spiders into the Legendarium. TH was never written to be part of the Legendarium & Tolkien had to rewrite it to make it fit even as weakly as it does. If LotR had not been written - ie if The Sil had been accepted for publication as Tolkien wished after the success of TH, then no-one would have thought of it as having anything to do with The Sil. The world of TH is not the world of The Sil, its Elves & trolls are not the Elves & trolls of The Sil. They are the Elves & trolls of children's fairy story.

I simply don't get this. What is the "Legendarium" without the detail? Little of import would be lost by cutting out much of the detail of LotR. What does Bombadil add to the story? How does it further the tale to have a detailed description of Lothlorien or the plains of Rohan? No, Bilbo's tale of his adventure is as much a part of the "Legendarium" as Legolas' account of events at Pelargir and the description of Sam's temptation by the Ring. Otherwise where do we draw the line? If we were to start picking and choosing what is "necessary" to further the "Legendarium", there is a danger that we would be left with very little indeed. In fact, one might argue that this is exactly what happened to Tolkien's "Silmarillion writings" with the publication of The Silmarillion.

LotR was (increasingly) written to fit into The world of The Sil - TH was not. It had to be made (unsuccessfuly IMO) to fit by alteration. Its not a matter of what is 'necessary' but of mood, tone, style, content. TH belongs with Roverandom & to a lesser extent with Giles (& with Goblin Feet). All good (apart from the latter). It has links with M-e, but it doesn't fit, & it should be seen as a 'children's fairy story' work, a 'sub-sub creation. Bilbo experienced something of that kind, but I don't see any evidence that Tolkien was completely happy for it to be included. It had to be there, in a way, due to LotR growing out of it, but Tolkien expressed his discomfort with it. Its in the Legendarium on suffrance, because Tolkien couldn't rewrite it in a more suitable style - as he stated he wished to. If he'd had his way it would have been rewritten in the form of The Quest of Erebor. As such, it would have belonged.

And, let's not forget that the main reason LotR is dismissed by so many critics as a 'children's' book is because it is read in the light if TH. From that perspective TH may have done more harm to Tolkien's literary reputation than good.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

So is Roverandom part of the Middle-earth canon? .

No, it is part of Tolkien's canon.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by davem

And, let's not forget that the main reason LotR is dismissed by so many critics as a 'children's' book is because it is read in the light if TH. From that perspective TH may have done more harm to Tolkien's literary reputation than good.

Hmm. This must be yours (or Flieger's ?) interpretation, but that is not the full story of critical appraisal of Tolkien.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

So is Roverandom part of the Middle-earth canon?

I have never read Roverandom, but I’m guessing that it does not (and was never intended to) form part of the “History of Middle-earth” and therefore that it does not. Although I must say that talking dogs are not a far cry from sentient foxes and eagles. Perhaps we should excise the fox from LotR for not “fitting” the tone of the rest of the story.

Originally Posted by davem

TH was never written to be part of the Legendarium & Tolkien had to rewrite it to make it fit even as weakly as it does.

The point is, though, that he did deliberately make it part of the Legendarium, even if that was not his intention at the outset. Should we not therefore bow to authorial intent and accept it as such?

It’s your opinion that it fits only weakly, and you are obviously entitled to it. But, from what has been said so far, others are clearly of a different opinon. For my part, I do not see the expanations that Helen, HI and Lalwendë have given as being over-elaborate. The explanation that Bilbo was exagerrating much of it, however, I do find unconvincing. Bilbo the whimsical I can accept. Bilbo as Walter Mitty I cannot.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by davem

TH was never written to be part of the Legendarium & Tolkien had to rewrite it to make it fit even as weakly as it does. If LotR had not been written - ie if The Sil had been accepted for publication as Tolkien wished after the success of TH, then no-one would have thought of it as having anything to do with The Sil.

The Sil was written and re-written but as yet unfinished, and LOTR did not yet exist, yet there was Elrond in TH-- talking about Gondolin and the Goblin Wars. TH snatched that little bit of Sil-background before LotR was even contemplated or asked for.

If you are saying that TH is not an integral part of the Sil, I agree with you. It ain't. But it arose out of the same compost (so to speak) and is part of the same forest.

[Mister Underhill]

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. Here's a sample:

The magic and mythology and assumed 'history' and most of the names (e.g. the epic of the Fall of Gondolin) [of The Hobbit] are, alas!, drawn from unpublished inventions, known only to my family, Miss Griffiths and Mr Lewis. I believe they give the narrative an air of 'reality' and have a northern atmosphere.

-Letter 15, 1937

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Geez, it's amazing how often I have to settle this issue for you all...

According to the OED:

Canon

4. The collection or list of books of the Bible accepted by the Christian Church as genuine and inspired. Also transf., any set of sacred books; also, those writings of a secular author accepted as authentic.

Seems to me that if we're using the word 'canon' in its usual sense, then, it would cover everything Tolkien wrote -- at least, everything he wrote that we are willing to accept as "authentic":

6. Really proceeding from its reputed source or author; of undisputed origin, genuine. (Opposed to counterfeit, forged, apocryphal.

So, if we can prove that Tolkien wrote it, it's part of the canon. Now, whether or not you are:

a) compelled to accept what the author has written

b) willing to accept what the author has written

c) free to accept what the author has written, or

d) couldn't care less what the author has written

is another issue entirely.

[obloquy]

The Hobbit fixes its own discrepancies by recognizing Bilbo as the author rather than Tolkien. He was writing an adventure story, not annals of Middle-earth. I asserted that it is not strictly canonical mythology-wise because Bilbo did not necessarily have this fidelity to fact in mind when writing it. The events presented in the book are still "true" events in the course of the Third Age, but the details, in my opinion, should be considered "flexible."

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Hmm. This must be yours (or Flieger's ?) interpretation, but that is not the full story of critical appraisal of Tolkien.

I said 'so many critics'. I didn't say I was offering 'the full story of the critical appraisal of Tolkien'.

=SpmI have never read Roverandom, but I’m guessing that it does not (and was never intended to) form part of the “History of Middle-earth” and therefore that it does not. Although I must say that talking dogs are not a far cry from sentient foxes and eagles. Perhaps we should excise the fox from LotR for not “fitting” the tone of the rest of the story.

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

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. Therefore, unlike all JRRT's other M-e writings it was dragged in. The only other example of this being done by Tolkien was in the Figures of Tom Bombadil & Goldberry, who take on a completely different form when they appear in LotR to the ones they had in the original poem.

The explanation that Bilbo was exagerrating much of it, however, I do find unconvincing. Bilbo the whimsical I can accept. Bilbo as Walter Mitty I cannot.

Again, that's not what I said, so I don't see why I need argue. However. The Hobbit was not meant to be a part of The Legendarium. It had to be made to fit in. It doesn't fit that well, because the tone & mood is out of keeping with the rest of the work. Helen's, H-I's & Lalwende's 'explanations' which are intended to account for the differences in tone & mood between TH & TS & LotR are their own work & as far as I'm aware were never offered by Tolkien himself, who stated that he was uncomfortable with the style & tone of the work. Clearly Tolkien felt TH in its original form did not fit, or he would not have made the changes - many minor (see Anderson 'The Annotated Hobbit') & one major - the rewrite of Riddles in the Dark, which presents us with a completely different Gollum to the one in the original.

Originally Posted by Helen

If you are saying that TH is not an integral part of the Sil, I agree with you. It ain't. But it arose out of the same compost (so to speak) and is part of the same forest.

That's what I'm saying. TH is part of the same 'forest' but its growing alongside Roverandom - the 'graft' onto the greater 'Tree' didn't take - IMO, of course.

Originally Posted by Mr U

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. Here's a sample:
Quote:
The magic and mythology and assumed 'history' and most of the names (e.g. the epic of the Fall of Gondolin) [of The Hobbit] are, alas!, drawn from unpublished inventions, known only to my family, Miss Griffiths and Mr Lewis. I believe they give the narrative an air of 'reality' and have a northern atmosphere.
-Letter 15, 1937

It was not written to be part of the Legendarium because the world in which it takes place was invented for the story & was not envisaged as part of Middle-earth. It only became part of Middle-earth when the 'New Hobbit' became LotR & was absorbed into the Legendarium. As for 'cold hard citations', I'll give you just one - HoMe vol 6.

As to the letter you quote. Again - Tolkien used elements from the existing mythology to create an illusion of 'depth'. He used it in the same way in both TH & Roverandom. If you accept one as an intentional addition to the Legendarium I'd like to see how you reject the other.

[b]Fordim[/i] I'm arguing about the 'canon' within the 'Canon'. I'm talking about what is 'canonical' within the Legendarium, the History of Middle-earth, not the wider 'Canon' of Tolkien's writing.

The Hobbit fixes its own discrepancies by recognizing Bilbo as the author rather than Tolkien.

No it doesn't, because the 'discrepancies' are too extreme, & were only made slightly less so by the changes Tolkien made to the original text. What TH actually is is a 'fairy story' written with no other purpose than to entertain his children. It owed at least as much to Wyke-Smith's Magical Land of the Snergs as to the Legendarium, if not far more. 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.

TH is a beautiful fairy story, very imperfectly assimilated into the Legendarium - not because Tolkien was a bad writer/adaptor, but because the story was being put to a use for which it was not originally intended. It does not belong in the Legendarium in the form in which it exists. I admire all the attempts being made to 'explain' Bilbo's 'exagerations', but there's such a thing as 'straining at a gnat & swallowing a camel.'

What is of value in TH to the Legendarium as a work of literary Art (or Genius), is to be found in the pages of LotR. In itself it contains some wonderful episodes & the second half in particular is a very powerful & moving story, but it just doesn't fit at all comfortably with what precedes or follows it.

[mark12_30]

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.

Old Toby, but that's beside the point. What other trolls names do we know? What other troll conversations do we overhear? None. They're too busy fighting.

Dwarves, and elves, singing comic songs-- that's like saying, because the story of Henry V is so majestic, nobody in the battle of Agincourt has a sense of humor. It doesn't follow. Galadriel being "Merry as any lass with daisies in her hair in springtime" disproves it. The idea that any playfulness is verboten, any comic relief is out of place, doesn't hold water in LOTR. Humor even shows up in the Sil, although it's a bit harder to find. "Nonetheless they will have need of wood."

Originally Posted by davem

TH is a beautiful fairy story, very imperfectly assimilated into the Legendarium - not because Tolkien was a bad writer/adaptor, but because the story was being put to a use for which it was not originally intended. It does not belong in the Legendarium in the form in which it exists.

I disagree. Original intent was clearly set aside, and although Tolkien had misgivings, clearly he got over them somehow and proceeded to connected the two. I do not see that connection as a mistake, a misplacement, or a mismatch.

Originally Posted by davem

I admire all the attempts being made to 'explain' Bilbo's 'exagerations', but there's such a thing as 'straining at a gnat & swallowing a camel.'

davem, honestly I don't think we're the ones swallowing the camel. Tolkien made the connection, despite some hemming and hawing (as was his wont, throughout the development of LOTR anyway, and was also the reason that the Sil wasn't published during his lifetime.) Tolkien put The Hobbit into the legendarium; we're letting him keep it there rather than arguing him out of his decision. Throwing out The Hobbit seems as utterly illogical to me as, apparently, keeping it in seems to you.

After all this I do notice that you haven't voted (few have.) Are you casting your vote for the final "Other" and submitting your new definition?

[Lalwendë]

Whatever the 'tone' or more aptly, style, of The Hobbit, it still would not be enough reason to exclude it from the Legendarium. It includes tales of things which are relevant to LotR and relevant to Middle-earth and so it is included, just as would be Adventures of Tom Bombadil. Whether it is serious or not is no justification for leaving it out. Jane Austen wrote Northanger Abbey as a satire and it is very different in tone to Persuasion but we do not cast it aside in considering her work.

As has already been pointed out many times, Tolkien was a perfectionist. It is lucky that anything was published from his Legendarium, and I am sure he would have jumped at the chance to revise LotR - his letters following it are filled with explanations, some of which seem to be highly revisionist.

If the world in which The Hobbit takes place was not meant to be part of the Legendarium then what do we say about The Shire? The character of Bilbo as introduced in The Hobbit is an archetypal Hobbit, certainly at first before he goes off on his adventures, and for a good way into the tale he remains the uncertain and slightly sceptical character we first meet. When we get to LotR we are thoroughly convinced that Hobbits and The Shire are things worth saving, we do not need to be convinced that the Ring is a threat because we know. Even in the films there had to be a prologue because the story simply would not have been 'set up' enough. I feel sorry for anyone who has not started with The Hobbit as it prepares us for what is to come.

Even if Tolkien genuinely hated The Hobbit (and I don't think he did - he was merely being perfectionist as usual) then the fact cannot be altered that it was published prior to LotR and without it there wouldn't even have been LotR. It is a fitting prologue to the longer work.

OK, so we might read LotR very well without it as we can get 'the basics' from the later text, but it is a sorry state of affairs when we are told that it is not necessary as though reading Tolkien's work was merely an ordeal to be got through. Where is the magic in that? We might as well read Brodies' Notes and have done. Flieger's argument sounded rather like a long-winded way of trying to justify why she didn't like The Hobbit and it didn't work as an argument as she contradicts herself.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Helen

What other trolls names do we know? What other troll conversations do we overhear? None. They're too busy fighting.

Sorry, but the trolls of TH are different. The 'argument' is about why. 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.

Dwarves, and elves, singing comic songs-- that's like saying, because the story of Henry V is so majestic, nobody in the battle of Agincourt has a sense of humor. It doesn't follow. Galadriel being "Merry as any lass with daisies in her hair in springtime" disproves it. The idea that any playfulness is verboten, any comic relief is out of place, doesn't hold water in LOTR. Humor even shows up in the Sil, although it's a bit harder to find. "Nonetheless they will have need of wood."

I'm not saying 'playfulness is verboten' - I'm saying in the context of the Legendarium [/i]that particular kind[/i] of playfulness is out of character. If that kind of thing did not appear in TH it would simply feel wrong in the context of the Legendarium as a whole. Its the wrong kind of 'merrymaking'. The Elves of Rivendell in TH are just silly - the epic 'tragedy' is absent.

Tolkien put The Hobbit into the legendarium; we're letting him keep it there rather than arguing him out of his decision. Throwing out The Hobbit seems as utterly illogical to me as, apparently, keeping it in seems to you.

He put an adapted version of it into The Sil, & even after writing The Quest of Erebor he realised it didn't 'fit'.

Some of the details of tone & treatment are, I now think...mistaken. (Letter 131)

I might not (if the story had been more carefully written & my world so much thought about 20 years ago) have used the expression 'Poor little blighter.' just as I should not have called the troll William (Letter 154)

The Hobbit was originally quite unconnected, though it inevitably got drawn in to the circumference of the greater construction; & in the event modified it. It was unhappily really meant, as far as I was conscious, as a 'children's story', & as I had not learned sense then, & my children were not quite old enough to correct me, it has some of the silliness of manner caught unthinkingly from the kind of stuff I had served to me..(Letter 163) See also Letters 215 & 234.

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. Letter 257.

I think I can call on Tolkien's support - particularly in what he says in that last quote. TH could (should?) stand quite apart. One could not say that of LotR...

Originally Posted by Lalwende

Even if Tolkien genuinely hated The Hobbit (and I don't think he did - he was merely being perfectionist as usual) then the fact cannot be altered that it was published prior to LotR and without it there wouldn't even have been LotR. It is a fitting prologue to the longer work.

No-one said he hated it. I said I loved it, but as a work in its own right, not as a part of the Legendarium.

OK, so we might read LotR very well without it as we can get 'the basics' from the later text, but it is a sorry state of affairs when we are told that it is not necessary as though reading Tolkien's work was merely an ordeal to be got through. Where is the magic in that? We might as well read Brodies' Notes and have done. Flieger's argument sounded rather like a long-winded way of trying to justify why she didn't like The Hobbit and it didn't work as an argument as she contradicts herself.

I don't see it as 'an ordeal' I just don't see it as a necessary 'prequel'. The true 'prequel' to LotR is The Sil.

(Flieger's argument didn't sound 'self-contradictory' to me....waits for slap )

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Flieger's argument sounded rather like a long-winded way of trying to justify why she didn't like The Hobbit and it didn't work as an argument as she contradicts herself.

Maybe it's a professional ploy. Having so soundly and roundly defended Tolkien against criticism from some academic quarters, perhaps she feels must reaffirm her academic credentials by dissing the 'truly' 'childish' tale, TH. Sometimes all that light up there in the forest canopy makes it hard to see the fecund 'shrooms and ferns--the biodiversity-- a-growin' in the forest floor.