Canon: what ARE we babbling about?

[mark12_30]

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

Even if he wasn't being a perfectionist-- and I think he was-- even so, he said some of the details of tone and treatment. That's a long way from saying, the whole work doesn't fit so throw it out. Details are details. To exclude the entire work based on a short list of details doesn't make sense.

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)

Again, these are details, and throwing out the work based on these details alone doesn't make sense.

The Hobbit was originally quite unconnected, though it inevitably got drawn in to the circumference of the greater construction; & in the event modified it.

He could have said the same thing about LOTR, which he didn't realise was going to connect so thoroughly to the Sil until he wrote Weathertop.

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.

Saying that the tale could stand apart is not the same as saying it is disconnected.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Helen

Even if he wasn't being a perfectionist-- and I think he was-- even so, he said some of the details of tone and treatment.

Typical English understatement....

Again, these are details, and throwing out the work based on these details alone doesn't make sense.

I'm not throwing it out based on those details alone - I've given a good few reasons...

He could have said the same thing about LOTR, which he didn't realise was going to connect so thoroughly to the Sil until he wrote Weathertop.

But he never connected TH so thouroughly..

Saying that the tale could stand apart is not the same as saying it is disconnected.

Nor is it saying the opposite...

As Tolkien stated the only reall connection between TH & The Sil are the references to Gondolin & they play a pretty irrelevant part. Tying TH so strongly into the Legendarium puts a weight on it which it cannot really bear - plus it makes a wonderful stand alone novel into a 'mere' prequel - something it was not meant to be, & a fate it doesn't deserve. TH should stand alone for what it was intended to be, a children's story - & it is a classic of that genre. Placing it in the Legendarium on equal terms with The Sil writings & LotR is unfair to it.

[Lalwendë]

mark 12_30 has just said what I was going to use as an argument - Yes, The Hobbit can stand alone, but that doesn't mean it has nothing to do with LotR. The curious thing is that all of Tolkien's published works can stand alone; the person who simply reads LotR and cannot get through The Sil is a common person - meaning that there are a lot of people who do this and there is nothing wrong in that. And The Sil is as different to LotR as The Hobbit is to LotR. If tone and style are the consideration then we might as well chuck out either LotR or The Sil too.

Of course the Elves of Rivendell in LotR are a whole lot more serious. They are in the process of discussing the fate of Middle-earth!

To use the Letters is itself risky - here we have a highly verbose and occasionally opinionated Tolkien explaining the tales after the fact. It is a very convenient way for him to add in explanation which he may not have intended - and which may even be intended for the (then) sole audience of the recipient of the letter. He was also (like Flieger ) an academic and an incredibly highly respected one at that and so his letters might be in some respects a form of PR to uphold his reputation.

[davem]

TH is clearly a 'non-canonical' secondarytext, of dubious value in terms of the actualite it presents. It may be accepted by some readers as having a value to the main body of the myth & by others as being 'mere' entertainment.

I think that sums up the positions....

And Flieger's argument was well presented & cogent.

As is mine

[Mister Underhill]

Ah, how selectively we quote!

Letter 131 (Expanded Edition):

Of course, I made up and even wrote lots of other things (especially for my children). Some escaped from the grasp of this branching acquisitive theme, being ultimately and radically unrelated: Leaf by Niggle and Farmer Giles, for instance, the only two that have been printed. The Hobbit, which has much more essential life in it, was quite independently conceived: I did not know as I began it that it belonged. But it proved to be the discovery of the completion of the whole, its mode of descent to earth, and merging into 'history'. As the high Legends of the beginning are supposed to look at things through Elvish minds, so the middle tale of the Hobbit takes a virtually human point of view – and the last tale blends them.

[Of the latter parts of The Silmarillion:] All through the twilight of the Second Age the Shadow is growing in the East of Middle-earth, spreading its sway more and more over Men – who multiply as the Elves begin to fade. The three main themes are thus The Delaying Elves that lingered in Middle-earth; Sauron's growth to a new Dark Lord, master and god of Men; and Numenor-Atlantis. They are dealt with annalistically, and in two Tales or Accounts, The Rings of Power and the Downfall of Númenor. Both are the essential background to The Hobbit and its sequel.

The generally different tone and style of The Hobbit is due, in point of genesis, to it being taken by me as a matter from the great cycle susceptible of treatment as a 'fairy-story', for children. Some of the details of tone and treatment are, I now think, even on that basis, mistaken. But I should not wish to change much. For in effect this is a study of simple ordinary man, neither artistic nor noble and heroic (but not without the undeveloped seeds of these things) against a high setting — and in fact (as a critic has perceived) the tone and style change with the Hobbit's development, passing from fairy-tale to the noble and high and relapsing with the return.

You (and Flieger, I presume) are way overstating Tolkien's feelings about TH.

You may consider Tolkien's integration of TH into the Legendarium clunky or inept and wish that it had never been attempted, but it is demonstrably absurd to contend that it did not happen, or that the world of TH is not the world of LotR and/or The Silmarillion.

Here are a few more Letters extracts for good measure:

"[The Hobbit] is not consciously based on any other book — save one, and that is unpublished: the 'Silmarillion', a history of the Elves, to which frequent allusion is made."
-Letter 25

"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."
-Letter 114

The Silmarillion was offered for publication years ago, and turned down. Good may come of such blows. The Lord of the Rings was the result. The hobbits had been welcomed. I loved them myself, since I love the vulgar and simple as dearly as the noble, and nothing moves my heart (beyond all the passions and heartbreaks of the world) so much as 'ennoblement' (from the Ugly Duckling to Frodo). I would build on the hobbits. And I saw that I was meant to do it (as Gandalf would say), since without thought, in a 'blurb' I wrote for The Hobbit, I spoke of the time between the Elder Days and the Dominion of Men. Out ofthat came the 'missing link': the 'Downfall of Númenor', releasing some hidden 'complex'.
-Letter 180

**EDIT:

Oh, and P.S.:

Originally Posted by SPM

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

Word.

[davem]

The Hobbit, which has much more essential life in it, was quite independently conceived:

Which is what I said - in origin TH had nothing to do with the Legendarium. Whereas you stated:

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.

I think what you've actually done is confirm my statement.

But it proved to be the discovery of the completion of the whole, its mode of descent to earth, and merging into 'history'. As the high Legends of the beginning are supposed to look at things through Elvish minds, so the middle tale of the Hobbit takes a virtually human point of view – and the last tale blends them.

I don't think that's how most people read TH. The 'virtually human' point of view is served better by the early chapters of LotR. TH does it much less well. Bilbo - whatever Tolkien says here is much more of a fairytale creature himself in TH. Hobbits only become 'humanised' fully in LotR.

Both are the essential background to The Hobbit and its sequel.

That 'background' is not essential to TH. Did you wonder about Numenor when you first read TH? Did you even know about Numenor? This letter was written to Milton Waldman, who Tolkien was trying to persuade to publish The Sil. Neither FoN or ORP&TA are necessary to an understanding of TH - they are only necessary to an understanding of LotR. TH is not necessary to an understanding of LotR, though.

You may consider Tolkien's integration of TH into the Legendarium clunky or inept and wish that it had never been attempted, but it is demonstrably absurd to contend that it did not happen, or that the world of TH is not the world of LotR and/or The Silmarillion.

Did I 'contend' that - I must have missed myself saying that. The 'world', the millieu, the mood, the tone. The 'world' of TH is only the same 'world' if we limit ourselves to mere 'geography'. A secondary 'world' is not simply a geographical space on map.

"[The Hobbit] is not consciously based on any other book — save one, and that is unpublished: the 'Silmarillion', a history of the Elves, to which frequent allusion is made."
-Letter 25

This statement is directly contradicted by Tolkien himself in Letter 257 which I quoted earlier:

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

. .

"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."
-Letter 114

This was written to a schoolboy. Tolkien would not have gone into depth regarding the way TH had become caught up in the Legendarium. By the time Tolkien wrote that letter (1948) TH had become linked in Tolkien's mind with the Legendarium. It was not part of the Legendarium when he wrote it.

Anyway, in short, you have offered no evidence (beyond yours & Tolkien opinion that TH is a vital part of the Legendarium. The Legendarium does not need it & TH is better off without that burden.

[Mister Underhill]

Which davem am I talking to? The one who thinks Authorial Intention is all, or the one who apparently stands ready to jettison a whole book and (apparently) slash whole sections of LotR even over the claims of the author, all on the basis of the opinion of some Tolkien scholar? The latter -- at least for the present -- it seems.

Of course there are the annoying facts of the Shire, the Ring, Gollum, old fairy-tale Bilbo himself, Elrond, Gandalf, Gloin, Balin, the Beornings, the Sackville-Bagginses (Heaven forbid! Too silly by far!), etc. and so on ad infinitum with which we must contend.

When Bilbo intruded into the Legendarium, he -- and Hobbits -- troubled the counsels of the Wise and the Great in more ways than one. His appearance echoed backwards and forwards through the Legendarium. You prefer your faerie dark and Elvish and brooding and epic, and that's fine. But that's not all there is in Middle-earth, nor all that Tolkien saw there.

You can kick the stone troll in the seat of his pants if you like, but you'll only end up breaking your own toe after all.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

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

I wasn't arguing anything. I was speculating in response to a question that you asked.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

You say that elements of the Legendarium are present in both Roverandom and The Hobbit, but that neither were originally written as part of it. I don't dispute that. The difference is that Tolkien never incorporated Roverandom into his history of Middle-earth. The same cannot be said of The Hobbit. You make the point yourself:

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Personally, I would not choose the words "forced" and "dragged", but I agree with the point that you make here. Tolkien deliberately chose to incorporate The Hobbit within his history of Middle-earth. Whether that incorporation seems forced or whether one considers it smooth is not the point. It is clear from LotR that Bilbo's adventure, as relayed in The Hobbit, took place some 80 years prior to the War of the Ring.

As Mister Underhill said:

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Of course there are the annoying facts of the Shire, the Ring, Gollum, old fairy-tale Bilbo himself, Elrond, Gandalf, Gloin, Balin, the Beornings, the Sackville-Bagginses (Heaven forbid! Too silly by far!), etc. and so on ad infinitum with which we must contend.

I would add Frodo and co's encounter with Bilbo's Stone Trolls into the mix too. Wether they were called William, Tom and Bert or Wollyam, Tzomm and Bhat matters not. They existed. Bilbo and the Dwarves encountered them. And they ended up turned to Stone. Oh, and their cache included Glamdring and Sting, both of which played their part in the War of the Ring.

Whether you dismiss parts of Bilbo's tale as fanciful or consider them merely whimsical, the point is that the events that he related occured, within your "secondary world" as part of the history of Middle-earth.

Originally Posted by davem

Again, that's not what I said, so I don't see why I need argue.

Actually, my Walter Mitty point was not made in response to you. Yet you go on to make it applicable to you:

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.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

I'm sorry, davem, your attempts to argue your point are, as always, most valiant. But, on this one, I would advise that you heed the words of your former signature.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mr U

Which davem am I talking to? The one who thinks Authorial Intention is all, or the one who apparently stands ready to jettison a whole book and (apparently) slash whole sections of LotR even over the claims of the author, all on the basis of the opinion of some Tolkien scholar? The latter -- at least for the present -- it seems.

I don't think I said I think 'authorial intention is all'. I said in other threads that we should try to just experience the art in as pure & uncluttered a way as possible. I've never suggested 'jettisoning' TH. 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'. 'Bilbos' tale grew in the telling' 'He was 'middle class' & the tone reflects that bias' or SpM's

Whether you dismiss parts of Bilbo's tale as fanciful or consider them merely whimsical, the point is that the events that he related occured, within your "secondary world" as part of the history of Middle-earth.

(which btw is something I said myself earlier on.)

I never suggested 'slashing whole sections of LotR' either.

Of course there are the annoying facts of the Shire, the Ring, Gollum, old fairy-tale Bilbo himself, Elrond, Gandalf, Gloin, Balin, the Beornings, the Sackville-Bagginses (Heaven forbid! Too silly by far!), etc. and so on ad infinitum with which we must contend.

No, we don't have to contend with those things at all. We just see & treat TH as at best 'secondary' M-e literature'. All that the Legendarium requires of Bilbo's story is encapsulated in LotR. TH should be seen as a M-e 'fantasia'. You're trying way too hard to keep it as a primary text, equal with LotR & The Sil writings.

Originally Posted by SPM

I would add Frodo and co's encounter with Bilbo's Stone Trolls into the mix too. Wether they were called William, Tom and Bert or Wollyam, Tzomm and Bhat matters not. They existed. Bilbo and the Dwarves encountered them. And they ended up turned to Stone. Oh, and their cache included Glamdring and Sting, both of which played their part in the War of the Ring.

Whether you dismiss parts of Bilbo's tale as fanciful or consider them merely whimsical, the point is that the events that he related occured, within your "secondary world" as part of the history of Middle-earth.

We're not talking about the events of the story but the kind of story it is. It doesn't belong in the Legendarium as a primary text. Its relation to the Legendarium is the same as that of Roverandom & the TB verses.

All I'm getting is that you guys want to keep it in for sentimental reasons. The fact that Bilbo & the Dwarves encountered three trolls, they found the swords & went to Rivendell is accepted. We're not discussing the events depicted - which are part of the Legendarium - we're talking about whether an (in parts condescending) childrens fairy story should be considered a primary text in the Legendarium.

As for the argument that the style of LotR is different from that of The Sil - this won't wash either, as there are Sil writings (the Narn & Tuor & his coming to Gondolin among others) which are in the style of LotR, & Appendix B of LotR is in the 'Annalistic' style of the Grey Annals & the Annals of Valinor etc). Only TH is out of place in terms of style, tone & mood - & the mental gymnastics required to make it 'belong' merely prove that.

I'm not saying you can't have TH. 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.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

All I'm getting is that you guys want to keep it in for sentimental reasons. The fact that Bilbo & the Dwarves encountered three trolls, they found the swords & went to Rivendell is accepted. We're not discussing the events depicted - which are part of the Legendarium - we're talking about whether an (in parts condescending) childrens fairy story should be considered a primary text in the Legendarium.

. . . .

I'm not saying you can't have TH. 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.

Congratulations, davem, for taking the thread so completely off topic. We were not discussing what belongs in the Legendarium, but what we mean by the word "canon". 'Canon' is not equivalent with "Legendarium."

From SpM to Fordim to my own posts, three of us have offerred definitions of that word in testimony to our point here--a definition which you have ignored and even studiously obfuscated.

Originally Posted by davem

TH is clearly a 'non-canonical' secondarytext, of dubious value in terms of the actualite it presents. It may be accepted by some readers as having a value to the main body of the myth & by others as being 'mere' entertainment.

I think that sums up the positions....

By the definitions offerred you cannot call it non-canonical and then say well, I meant non-Legendarium. And using the single quotation punctuation marks is a wafflish weasle bit of rhetorical legerdemain, roughly akin to having your cake and eating it too. And I am not aware that defining terms is a feature of sentimentality.

Your argument belongs in a completely different thread. I'm sure you would find yourself in less of a minority should you wish to argue it there. Although I'm not sure just what all the fuss is about.

Ideas evolve, transform. Sometimes we start out on the road without knowing where we will end. What was it T. S. Eliot said? Something to the effect of "to return from all our wanderings and know the place for the first time."

A children's tale that bore traces of Tolkien's own academic reading, lore, and languages is what got him going and what stimulated his publishers into getting him to write more. These are facts of publishing history. Maybe academics are embarassed about the significance of childish things to adults?

[Lalwendë]

So, there is Tolkien canon and Legendarium canon? (davem has been insisting on this ). From this there are certain texts which are plainly not part of the information which we have about Middle-earth - and there are those which plainly are about Middle-earth. However, I still do not accept that The Hobbit should be considered as separate from the Legendarium purely because it has a different tone and style.

Even if Tolkien himself did not think the style was coherent with the style of LotR and The Sil, it is still part of the Legendarium because it concerns plots, characters and places which we come across within other parts of the legendarium, and not just tangentially, but directly and extensively.

Many many writers have been and would be uncomfortable for certain works they have produced to be considered by scholars but nevertheless they are considered. Tolkien's own Letters do not demonstrate that he was particularly embarrassed by The Hobbit, merely that he didn't like certain aspects of it and in retrospect thought they may have been improved in some way.

The question of style and tone is now really just one of taste. The Hobbit is already out there, on release as t'were, and there isn't anything we can do about it, and as such it will inevitably be considered as part of ther Legendarium.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Maybe academics are embarassed about the significance of childish things to adults?

Too true I fear. Maybe it is one of the pitfalls of intellectualising a legendarium that is at root simply a good adventure?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Congratulations, davem, for taking the thread so completely off topic. We were not discussing what belongs in the Legendarium, but what we mean by the word "canon". 'Canon' is not equivalent with "Legendarium."

From SpM to Fordim to my own posts, three of us have offerred definitions of that word in testimony to our point here--a definition which you have ignored and even studiously obfuscated.

I think if you read Obloquy's post (no 5) you'll see where this 'canon' question arose.

There is a Middle-earth 'canon' - writings by Tolkien (& Christopher as well now) which are about Middle-earth. The question is which writings belong in it & what relevance they have. Therefore it is a question of canonicity in that sense. This thread is about what we mean when we use the term 'canon' in relation to Tolkien's writings. If we're simply going to accept the dictionary definition of 'canon' this thread is meaningless. Canon is defined (Merriam-webster) as:
a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works <the canon of great literature> Hence one can talk about the Middle-earth 'canon' (or Legendarium if you like.)

A children's tale that bore traces of Tolkien's own academic reading, lore, and languages is what got him going and what stimulated his publishers into getting him to write more. These are facts of publishing history. Maybe academics are embarassed about the significance of childish things to adults?

This is not relevant to the point I'm making - which is how or if TH is a primary text within the M-e 'canon' - or whether it actually belongs there at all.

Tolkien himself was uncomfortable with the condescending tone of TH - the knowing wink to the adults in the adults in the audience, what he called the 'pigwiggenry' (On Fairy Stories) - which is what we see in the early parts of TH/ In fact, as Flieger pointed out it was after the writing of TH that he wrote that essay. Certainly he never wrote in that 'style' again - if he had no problem with that 'tone' why not?

Originally Posted by Lalwende

Even if Tolkien himself did not think the style was coherent with the style of LotR and The Sil, it is still part of the Legendarium because it concerns plots, characters and places which we come across within other parts of the legendarium, and not just tangentially, but directly and extensively.

Its a story that makes use of the Legendarium. & which Tolkien attempted to integrate into it at a later date. Whether he succeeded or not is the question.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Its a story that makes use of the Legendarium. & which Tolkien attempted to integrate into it at a later date. Whether he succeeded or not is the question.

In this sense, it makes use of The Sil, but it does not make use of LotR, it cannot, as it caused LotR to come into being. Without The Hobbit there would be no Ring, no quest and no LotR. We would have The Sil (possibly, if it was published, but it may just as likely have remained in Tolkien's desk) but there would be no LotR and probably no massive fandom.

Considering style and tone and whether The Hobbit fits with the style and tone of LotR, it certainly does, especially in the earlier parts of the book (LotR), and in reference later on (humour continues throughout the book). LotR in itself is shifting in tone and style and at the end it again echoes The Hobbit. If anything doesn't 'fit' it might be argued that it in fact could be The Sil which is very different in tone and style not only to The Hobbit but to LotR. The difference is much more marked between LotR and The Sil than between The Hobbit and LotR. However, I do not think any of the texts ought to be separated from the Legendarium merely due to stylistic properties.

As I've already said, a dislike of tone or style is usually a matter of taste. There are many many serious readers who do not enjoy the tone of the chapters dealing with the battle for Gondor but there are more who do appreciate the change in style and for whom this does not break the enchantment.

I think that what is at the heart of this is that Flieger's enchantment was broken by The Hobbit - maybe her taste veers towards the epic and the serious but for many more readers, the whimsical also has a strong appeal, as shown in the love for Tom Bombadil. The point Flieger made about 'pigwiggenry' was a moot point, a question of taste again. There is no evidence to prove that Tolkien thought his own work was 'pigwiggenry' - in fact judging by the words he uses to describe pigwiggenry, The Hobbit is anything but that.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I think if you read Obloquy's post (no 5) you'll see where this 'canon' question arose.

There is a Middle-earth 'canon' - writings by Tolkien (& Christopher as well now) which are about Middle-earth. The question is which writings belong in it & what relevance they have. Therefore it is a question of canonicity in that sense. This thread is about what we mean when we use the term 'canon' in relation to Tolkien's writings. If we're simply going to accept the dictionary definition of 'canon' this thread is meaningless. Canon is defined (Merriam-webster) as:
a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works <the canon of great literature> Hence one can talk about the Middle-earth 'canon' (or Legendarium if you like.)

This is not relevant to the point I'm making - which is how or if TH is a primary text within the M-e 'canon' - or whether it actually belongs there at all. . . .

No, you can't blame Oblo for your pertinacity, davem, for your number of posts on the issue has long out-run his.

Of course if you wish to insist upon your own exclusive 'true meaning' of Legendarium-canon, that is of course your wont and right.

And even if you wish to include a second author--Christopher--as legitimately co-determinant with the first--and exclude works of the first author as a result of that, that, too, is your wont and right.

Yet others are free also to demur that this form of argument prioritises some texts over others on the basis of what they perceive as a faulty argument.

This is not relevant to the point I'm making - which is how or if TH is a primary text within the M-e 'canon' - or whether it actually belongs there at all.

My point is relevant. TH belongs there because,it was TH which made LoTR possible. The Hebrew Bible --or Old Testament--made the New Testament possible. There are some books contemporary with the NT which some Christians jettison as apochryphal, but Christians still include the Old Testament with their Bible.

[mark12_30]

I must admit to some surprise that after assembling the most complete poll I could, there are still options that I did not account for. Good thing Heren-Istarion included the "Else: Fill-In-The-Blank" vote.

Still, I think this all underlines the necessity of defining terms (yet again).

Perhaps we should beg Heren-Istarion to start a separate poll entitled "Which works of Tolkien should be excluded from the Legendarium." Or perhaps "Tone: the defining element or not?"

In the meantime, for this poll it would seem that davem has selected the "Else: fill in the blank" final option. True, davem?

In the meantime, Bethberry-- you did request the "Works published during the author's lifetime". I wait with baited breath wondering which selection you will choose.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

No, you can't blame Oblo for your pertinacity, davem, for your number of posts on the issue has long out-run his.

I'm not 'blaming' Oblo . I was merely pointing out the starting point of this discussion.

TH belongs there because,it was TH which made LoTR possible.

No, it was The Sil which made LotR possible. If The Sil had not existed there would have been no LotR. TH provided the reason for Tolkien beginning LotR. That reason was soon left behind & LotR became the culmination of The Sil, not the sequel to TH.

Yet others are free also to demur that this form of argument prioritises some texts over others on the basis of what they perceive as a faulty argument.

I think everyone has accepted that the tone & mood of TH is 'unique', that the Elves, Trolls, Goblins, the narrative voice & even the character of Gandalf are 'wrong' in the context of the rest of the Legendarium. The only arguments against my position seem to be 1 - Tolkien wrote TH & it makes references to The Sil & 2 - Bilbo was 'elaborating' his story & had a middle-class bias against against 'foreigners'.

Nobody has provided a convincing argument that TH fits the mood & tone of the rest of the Legendarium.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

No, it was The Sil which made LotR possible. If The Sil had not existed there would have been no LotR. TH provided the reason for Tolkien beginning LotR. That reason was soon left behind & LotR became the culmination of The Sil, not the sequel to TH.

This line of argument doesn't really make any sense. I could equally say it was my mother who made me possible and if she had not existed there would be no me. But my father had to exist in order to provide the impetus for me to be created. Just as The Hobbit had to exist to make LotR exist.

Originally Posted by davem

I think everyone has accepted that the tone & mood of TH is 'unique', that the Elves, Trolls, Goblins, the narrative voice & even the character of Gandalf are 'wrong' in the context of the rest of the Legendarium. The only arguments against my position seem to be 1 - Tolkien wrote TH & it makes references to The Sil & 2 - Bilbo was 'elaborating' his story & had a middle-class bias against against 'foreigners'.

Nobody has provided a convincing argument that TH fits the mood & tone of the rest of the Legendarium.

What I have yet to see is any convincing argument to say that tone matters all that much.

I have to draw davem's attention to something he said in the What breaks the enchantment thread.

Originally Posted by davem

Its interesting that some things, some connections we make - whether its a connection with 'children's literature', a particular religious morality, or whatever will break the spell for us, while others won't - connections with other myths or symbols. So, it seems to be an entirely subjective thing - its not the author's fault. He doesn't break the spell - we do, by what we bring to our reading. Its not the author's faillure, but our own - if it was the author's failure it the spell would be broken for every reader at the same point in the story. The fact that what breaks the spell for some doesn't break it for others proves that the author has not failed.

As davem says above, if the 'spell' is broken then it is not due to the author, it is due to the reader. The Hobbit enchants the majority of 'Downers, who have accepted it into the Legendarium. I say that clearly Flieger was bringing in a whole cartload of 'baggage' to her reading of The Hobbit. Interestingly in the 'enchantment' thread there are several people who say that the 'spell' was broken when they read The Hobbit but that they found a way into the story (and indeed, there are many instances in LotR where the same thing occurs) - that is a more commendable approach than to look for an intellectual loophole and exploit it to explain why a text was not 'enjoyable' to an individual reader. Listening to what was being said I felt intense disappointment that the arguments of a critic which had been constructed to explain her personal lack of enjoyment may be taken to heart by Tolkien fans.

Yes, the tone is unique, but then the tone of those chapters dealing with the battle for Gondor are also unique, and so are the words of the Chapters in the Old Forest, and the words of the Scouring of the Shire and so on...we even see differing styles of Poetry within the text. Tolkien's work is shifting in tone and style throughout, and so it simply ought not to be taken into any account when considering if something fits the Legendarium. What matters is the story.

[davem]

This line of argument doesn't really make any sense. I could equally say it was my mother who made me possible and if she had not existed there would be no me. But my father had to exist in order to provide the impetus for me to be created. Just as The Hobbit had to exist to make LotR exist.

What I was saying was that LotR breaks away from TH very early on in the drafting. TH becomes in many ways a source text. Tolkien did not write LotR as a sequel to TH - though that may have been his reason for starting to write it. From that pov TH did 'have to exist' - just as Beowulf, the Eddas, the Mabinogion & the Kalevala 'had' to exist to make LotR exist. I don't think anyone would argue that all Tolkien's 'sources' should be included in the Legendarium.

As to what I said in the quote Lalwende gives, I'm not sure how it applies. I was referring to an individual work of an author in that passage & how we experience it. This is a different argument - what belongs in the Legendarium & what does not. I don't consider that anything in TH 'breaks the spell' of the story. Its only when TH is taken as part of the Legendarium that it feels 'out of place'.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

In the meantime, Bethberry-- you did request the "Works published during the author's lifetime". I wait with baited breath wondering which selection you will choose.

Ah, Helen, I made the request in reference to all the logical possibilities that our various Downers might wish for--witness SpM's concurrence--and not out of preference to see my personal choice 'pollarised', you might say.

I'm notoriously bad at polls and multiple choice questions. I drive telephone pollsters mad asking them what their questions mean and if a really off base interpretation is the one intended because then, well, I wouldn't really have the faintest clue how to procede. Or I offer my own off base interpretation which clearly shows how my answers are going to skew the data collection.

And so, in short, I've steered clear of actually voting on many of our recent polls. I have trouble deciding which side of my toast to butter too.

I find arguments like davem's to be really rather interesting, for they tend to shatter old assumptions and offer new ways of seeing things. What indeed is 'canon'. However, I also find that the most fruitful of this sort of iconoclastic approaches are those which result in some postive understanding, something which opens up new ideas. Something which simply excludes or diminishes our understanding becomes, imho, little more than an intellectual exercise, which of course is the game that academics play.

So, I would ask two questins. How does davem's argument open up the Legendarium to a greater understanding? What does it add so we can appreciate the mythology better? And, second, how does this approach help us understand TH better? Does it break the thing in the analysis?

Originally Posted by davem

Its only when TH is taken as part of the Legendarium that it feels 'out of place'.

Well, TH gave the world hobbits. And one hobbit in particular plays rather a special role in the Legendarium as explained in LotR. There might be some differences of degree between TH hobbits and LotR hobbits, but I don't think there is a difference in kind.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by davem

Nobody has provided a convincing argument that TH fits the mood & tone of the rest of the Legendarium.

Nor, davem, have you suceeded in convincing us that Mood and Tone define the legendarium. I would say that most who have contributed so far, feel that Mood and Tone are *not* the defining factors in the Legendarium.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

What I was saying was that LotR breaks away from TH very early on in the drafting. TH becomes in many ways a source text. Tolkien did not write LotR as a sequel to TH - though that may have been his reason for starting to write it. From that pov TH did 'have to exist' - just as Beowulf, the Eddas, the Mabinogion & the Kalevala 'had' to exist to make LotR exist. I don't think anyone would argue that all Tolkien's 'sources' should be included in the Legendarium.

Of course it breaks away, it's a different book - but consider that it also veers back to it again at least twice. And this is a very different text as 'source' than those by other writers - a Historian would term The Hobbit as Primary evidence while texts by other writers can never be more than Secondary evidence.

All three major texts are interlinked and should all be considered as parts of the Legendarium simply because the story demands we consider them together - and we can have any number of styles, themes or whatnot but without a story to hang them on there's nothing. The style is irrelevant as the story concerns Middle-earth, and the characters therein, and it is a necessary part of the wider tale; had Tolkien decided to write one of the texts in the style of Virginia Woolf or James Joyce we might think differently, but in reality the style is complementary so it ought not to be of great concern.

We could in fact consider the three major texts as a journey in themselves, undertaken both by reader and characters, a journey from innocence to maturity. The fun-loving Elves of The Hobbit are the Elves idealised, before the Fall, while the Elves of the Sil are the Elves in maturity, fallen from Grace. Or is that a long-winded explanation? Either way, it's no more long-winded than trying to discredit The Hobbit by speculatively referring to 'pigwiggenry' which we will never know if Tolkien intended to refer to his own work.

Each leaf, of oak and ash and thorn, is a unique embodiment of the pattern, and for some eye this very year may be the embodiment, the first ever seen and recognised, though oaks have put forth leaves for countless generations of men.

Here Tolkien (from On Fairy Stories) describes how a new story, though it may be a tale often heard before, may for one person cause realisation, a sense of wonder. By implication, this would suggest that for others, the tale does nothing at all. And that is fine, but taste should not be the standard by which we include or remove a text from the Legendarium. If it was, then a lot of people would have discarded The Sil by now as it can be an incredibly difficult book in narrative terms and is not always enjoyed. Tolkien's words as above, could also describe how the 'Tree' of the story has many different and unique leaves.

EDIT: I think that what Bethberry poses is pertinent, as I fear that by wilfully excluding a text we can only limit ourselves. The arguments posed by the 'pro-Hobbit' posters put up many arguments why The Hobbit is different and why it deserves inclusion despite having differences. I'm all for diversity, and where do we stop if we are to 'exclude' works due to 'tone'? Taken to a logical conclusion, we must also jettison LotR as it is not part of that pure Silmarillion corpus which was first conceived.

[davem]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Nor, davem, have you suceeded in convincing us that Mood and Tone define the legendarium. I would say that most who have contributed so far, feel that Mood and Tone are *not* the defining factors in the Legendarium.

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

So, I would ask two questins. How does davem's argument open up the Legendarium to a greater understanding? What does it add so we can appreciate the mythology better? And, second, how does this approach help us understand TH better? Does it break the thing in the analysis?

One, it hopefully leads us to look at the Legendarium as a work of Art & think about how & why it affects us. I'd refer others to the 'Children' section of 'On Fairy Stories' for why TH is out of place. I've tried to explain why I think TH doesn't 'fit', rather than just state baldly 'It doesn't fit!' & leave it at that.

Two, I'd say the main thing that prevents us understanding TH is our seeing it as being merely 'in the service' of LotR, rather than as a story in its own right. Read as 'merely' the prequel to LotR is bound to show it up poorly. If it was seperated out, & classed alongside Tolkien's other non-Legendarium writings (Smith, Niggle, Giles, Roverandom, Mr Bliss, Father Christmas Letters), we would more easily 'understand' what Tolkien was doing & what he wanted to give us.

Well, TH gave the world hobbits. And one hobbit in particular plays rather a special role in the Legendarium as explained in LotR. There might be some differences of degree between TH hobbits and LotR hobbits, but I don't think there is a difference in kind.

There is a dragon in Roverandom which is the same 'in kind' as Smaug - not a good reson on its own to include R in the Legendarium. What I'm saying (ad infinitum, I know!) is that TH should be seen as a seperate story which draws on the Legendarium, not as an integral part of it. The parts of TH which are relevant to the Legendarium are incorporated into LotR, therefore TH is not necessary to the Legendarium & as I said before I don't want to destroy all copies of TH or anything - I'm just questioning whether it should be included in the Legendarium, let alone considered a 'primary text'.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

There is a dragon in Roverandom which is the same 'in kind' as Smaug - not a good reson on its own to include R in the Legendarium. What I'm saying (ad infinitum, I know!) is that TH should be seen as a seperate story which draws on the Legendarium, not as an integral part of it. The parts of TH which are relevant to the Legendarium are incorporated into LotR, therefore TH is not necessary to the Legendarium & as I said before I don't want to destroy all copies of TH or anything - I'm just questioning whether it should be included in the Legendarium, let alone considered a 'primary text'.

Dragons existed before Tolkien started to write. Hobbits did not. They are a wholly new 'species' in the perilous realm and as such the story which first presents them surely belongs with what else Tolkien does with them.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by davem

One, it hopefully leads us to look at the Legendarium as a work of Art & think about how & why it affects us.

Um. Maybe this is just messing around with semantics, but the Legendarium is not itself a work of Art. The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, the writings of HoMe are the works of Art. The Legendarium itself is something which readers compile from all those works.

Originally Posted by davem

I'd say the main thing that prevents us understanding TH is our seeing it as being merely 'in the service' of LotR, rather than as a story in its own right. Read as 'merely' the prequel to LotR is bound to show it up poorly. If it was seperated out, & classed alongside Tolkien's other non-Legendarium writings (Smith, Niggle, Giles, Roverandom, Mr Bliss, Father Christmas Letters), we would more easily 'understand' what Tolkien was doing & what he wanted to give us.

I have never had a problem respecting TH as a story or work of art in its own right when read as a prequel to LotR.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Two, I'd say the main thing that prevents us understanding TH is our seeing it as being merely 'in the service' of LotR, rather than as a story in its own right. Read as 'merely' the prequel to LotR is bound to show it up poorly. If it was seperated out, & classed alongside Tolkien's other non-Legendarium writings (Smith, Niggle, Giles, Roverandom, Mr Bliss, Father Christmas Letters), we would more easily 'understand' what Tolkien was doing & what he wanted to give us.

This argument presupposes that readers do fail to understand The Hobbit and the evidence in the form of an appreciative readership shows otherwise. If someone does fail to understand The Hobbit then they are free to do that individually but as a whole the Tolkien fan/critical community would not support this.

And to separate it into the bracket of other texts such as Smith etc. would be to denigrate it.

Originally Posted by davem

The parts of TH which are relevant to the Legendarium are incorporated into LotR, therefore TH is not necessary to the Legendarium & as I said before I don't want to destroy all copies of TH or anything - I'm just questioning whether it should be included in the Legendarium, let alone considered a 'primary text'.

And as I've already said, there is a lot of magic in The Hobbit and though the strictly necessary information may be found elsewhere, it would be a very sorry (and orcish) state of affairs if we reduced judging what is of value to that level.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Dragons existed before Tolkien started to write. Hobbits did not. They are a wholly new 'species' in the perilous realm and as such the story which first presents them surely belongs with what else Tolkien does with them.

Why surely? Its not 'sure' at all. That's what I've been arguing. It is lazy though....

Um. Maybe this is just messing around with semantics, but the Legendarium is not itself a work of Art. The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, the writings of HoMe are the works of Art. The Legendarium itself is something which readers compile from all those works.

No, Tolkien used the term Legendarium to refer to his mythology as a whole. He tried to fit TH into it. I'm arguing that was a mistake & that he never managed to successfully do it. The Legendarium is his Middle earth mythology as a whole.

And I have never had a problem respecting TH as a story or work of art in comparison to LotR just because it is silly and childish and lacks the high moral tone of LotR or the tragedy of The Silm.

Me neither - I just don't believe that, even though it is a work of art in comparison to LotR, it should be part of the Legendarium. And I have to say that your opinion of TH as 'silly and childish' is exactly in line with Flieger's position - though not with mine. It contains things (which I've detailed) which are 'silly & childish' when seen in the context of the Legendarium but not when it is seen as a work of art in its own right. As I said TH suffers by comparison when it is included in the Legendarium.

Originally Posted by Lalwende

And to separate it into the bracket of other texts such as Smith etc. would be to denigrate it.

I don't agree - Smith & Niggle are profoundly beautiful works. I don't see how including TH with them 'denigrates' it at all.

And as I've already said, there is a lot of magic in The Hobbit and though the strictly necessary information may be found elsewhere, it would be a very sorry (and orcish) state of affairs if we reduced judging what is of value to that level.

And as I've already said, I agree there is a lot of magic in TH. I'm not attempting to 'reduce its value' merely questioning whether it belongs in the Legendarium.

[Lalwendë]

In terms of the whole Tolkien canon it is the works which deal with Middle-earth which have the highest 'value' if such a price could be placed on his texts. We read and enjoy works like Smith etc. but like it or not we do use these texts to apply what they say to our own understanding of Tolkien's Middle-earth creation. The Hobbit ought not to be used in this way; to use it as source material to define our understanding of the 'serious' work does denigrate it. Why should it not be used in this way? Simply because it is part of the Middle-earth story. It is where we first meet many of the characters and gain our first understanding of that world. Whether or not Tolkien was successful at fitting it into the Legendarium is beside the point as try to fit it in he did. Which indicates that in Tolkien's opinion it is part of the Legenadrium, however clumsily or not it fits.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Why surely? Its not 'sure' at all. That's what I've been arguing. It is lazy though....



No, Tolkien used the term Legendarium to refer to his mythology as a whole. He tried to fit TH into it. I'm arguing that was a mistake & that he never managed to successfully do it. The Legendarium is his Middle earth mythology as a whole.



Me neither - I just don't believe that, even though it is a work of art in comparison to LotR, it should be part of the Legendarium. And I have to say that your opinion of TH as 'silly and childish' is exactly in line with Flieger's position - though not with mine. It contains things (which I've detailed) which are 'silly & childish' when seen in the context of the Legendarium but not when it is seen as a work of art in its own right. As I said TH suffers by comparison when it is included in the Legendarium.

Help me from this slough of laziness which I thought was a morass of logic. How one can, logically, exclude from the mythology the story which introduces one of Tolkien's most original contributions, the hobbits. The hobbits the most original part of the Legendarium. 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. Just what version of Galadriel are we supposed to use? That can be argued at finitum. The point about the Legendarium is that it is not a coherent system, not a Unified Field Theory and no amount of whittling can solidly put a round peg into a square hole. It is something that evolved over time and to ignore that evolution and the different stages of it is to falsify it.

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".

And my use of 'silly and childish' in reference to TH was intended to be ironic,. Of course, I suppose you can ignore my intention and stick with your misreading, but that would conflict with other comments I have made in defense of the 'childish' elements in TH.

[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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

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.

And I'm sure he'll do the same with their talking purse & with Beorn's animals, walking on their hind legs & carrying plates

But to get serious for a moment. Letter 19 (from Dec 1937 - after the completion & publication of TH):

I think it is plain that ...a sequel or successor to The Hobbit is called for. I promise to give this thought & attention. But I am sure you will sympathise when I say that the construction of elaborate & consistent mythology (& two languages) rather occupies the mind, & the Silmarils are in my heart....Mr Baggins began as a comic tale among conventional & inconsistent Grimm's fairy-tale dwarves, & got drawn into the edge of it...And what more can Hobbits do? They can be comic, but their comedy is suburban unless it is set against things more elemental.

1:'But I am sure you will sympathise when I say that the construction of elaborate & consistent mythology (& two languages) rather occupies the mind, & the Silmarils are in my heart.'

This 'but' is significant - Tolkien is drawing a very clear, precise, distinction between TH & the Silmarillion. He is stating quite clearly that he will give thought to a sequel to TH, but that he'd rather concentrate on The Sil.

2:'Mr Baggins began as a comic tale among conventional & inconsistent Grimm's fairy-tale dwarves, & got drawn into the edge of it...'

Again, confirmation that TH was not written as part of The Sil - the Dwarves are not his 'Naugrim' but have their origin in the Grimm's tales. TH may have 'got drawn into the edge of' the Legendarium but Tolkien is clearly stating here that he did not consider it to be part of it - it 'is on the edge of it' - which is pretty much what I'm saying here.

3:And what more can Hobbits do? They can be comic, but their comedy is suburban unless it is set against things more elemental.'

The Hobbits of TH couldn't do any more- because the 'Hobbits' of TH are not the Hobbits of LotR - they do not have the depth, or complexity. or spiritual potential of the Hobbits of the later work.

If Tolkien had followed his heart there would have been no sequel to TH & TH would not have been connected with The Sil - even if that work had seen publication - anymore than Roverandom is connected in readers mind's with The Sil. It is only the existence of LotR which leads people to think of TH as part of the Legendarium - not anything in TH per se.

[Lalwendë]

Tolkien also says in that letter that Mr Baggins 'got drawn into the edge of it' - so Tolkien is acknowledging that The Hobbit has now become a part of his Legendarium.

Originally Posted by davem

If Tolkien had followed his heart there would have been no sequel to TH & TH would not have been connected with The Sil - even if that work had seen publication - anymore than Roverandom is connected in readers mind's with The Sil.

And so if Tolkien had followed his heart and not produced a sequel what does that leave us with? No LotR. And The Sil languishing in the private papers of the descendants of an Oxford professor?

Originally Posted by davem

It is only the existence of LotR which leads people to think of TH as part of the Legendarium - not anything in TH per se.

This misses the point about where each work 'sits' - the Legendarium is a journey (much as LotR is a journey) with many stopping off points; it includes a multitude of styles, even of genres, it is diverse, and that is why readers are quite content to include The Hobbit.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by davem

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

It's relevant when you accuse one side of making convoluted explanations while simultaneously implying that your own is not.

Originally Posted by davem

The 'historical' references in TH are few & are only there - as Tolkien stated - to give a sense of historical 'depth'.

They serve much the same function in LotR. So?

Originally Posted by davem

Again, I'd offer Anderson's Annotated Hobbit & HoMe 6 as proof of that.

You'll have to do better than "HoME 6" to support your argument here. I do not, alas, own a copy of the Annotated Hobbit, and so cannot answer you there.

But in the meantime, I would point out that the character of Bilbo, and his role as a writer in and of Middle-earth, was important enough that Tolkien attributed to him the translation of the Silmarillion. I'll also add this, from Christopher Tolkien:

Originally Posted by Christopher Tolkien

But beyond the difficulties and the obscurities [of the textual history of the Silmarillion], what is certain and very evident is that for the begetter of Middle-earth and Valinor there was a deep coherence and vital interrelation between all its times, places, and beings, whatever the literary modes, and however protean some parts of the conception might seem when viewed over a long lifetime.

[...]the author's vision of his own vision underwent a continual slow shifting, shedding and enlarging: only in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings did parts of it emerge to become fixed in print, in his own lifetime.

An interesting point, that last -- that the only truly "fixed" points of Silmarillion lore are those published in two books, one of which you seek to exclude.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

Hear, hear!

Originally Posted by davem

The Hobbits of TH couldn't do any more- because the 'Hobbits' of TH are not the Hobbits of LotR - they do not have the depth, or complexity. or spiritual potential of the Hobbits of the later work.

Balderdash. Show me how the hobbits of TH are not the hobbits of LotR.

You're also ignoring Tolkien's later statements to the effect that Bilbo's intrusion into the legendarium was a fortuitous accident, and, indeed, his reservations about publishing the Silmarillion at all. Why? "No hobbits!"

If anything, in a grouping of TH, LotR, and The Sil, it's usually the Sil (in the forms in which it exists) which is the odd man out, the one that "doesn't fit", as Lalwendë has already noted.

You're thinking of the Sil as a coherent and fixed work -- but early editions of TH referred to the (then) Sil "Gnomes" instead of the later "Elves". The Sil legends were constantly in flux throughout Tolkien's lifetime. Therefore, there never really was a fixed "legendarium" for Tolkien to integrate TH into. Each work acted and reacted on all the other works, until two became (relatively) fixed by publication: TH and LotR.

[davem]

They serve much the same function in LotR. So?

No they don't the relationship of lotR to the Sil is much more complex. LotR is the culmination of the whole Legndarium.

Balderdash. Show me how the hobbits of TH are not the hobbits of LotR.

The only Hobbit we see in TH is Bilbo. Bilbo in TH is a typical fairy creture. The complex social structure of Hobbit society only comes in with LotR. Its inly in LotR that Hobbits become 'humanised'.

Sorry, but in 1937 Tolkien refers to TH as 'peripheral'. Over 25 years later, in 1964 (letter 257) he says the same.

No time.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by davem

The complex social structure of Hobbit society only comes in with LotR

Those three I've met in a bar on page one were Hobbiton realtors, or so it seems...

He had arrived back in the middle of an auction! There was a large notice in black and red hung on the gate, stating that on June the Twenty-second Messrs. Grubb, Grubb, and Burrowes would sell by auction the effects of the late Bilbo Baggins Esquire, of Bag-End, Underhill, Hobbiton. Sale to commence at ten o'clock sharp. It was now nearly lunch-time, and most of the things had already been sold, for various prices from next to nothing to old songs (as is not unusual at auctions). Bilbo's cousins the Sackville-Bagginses were, in fact, busy measuring his rooms to see if their own furniture would fit. In short Bilbo was "Presumed Dead," and not everybody that said so was sorry to find the presumption wrong.
The return of Mr. Bilbo Baggins created quite a disturbance, both under the Hill and over the Hill, and across the Water; it was a great deal more than a nine days' wonder. The legal bother, indeed, lasted for years.