Canon: what ARE we babbling about?

[The Saucepan Man]

To change the subject ( ), I found the following comment by Kuruharan on another thread (Melkor's depiction by artists: Flawed?) interesting in this context:

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

(It is kind of hard to disagree with how Tolkien drew Smaug in my own view)

Do we include Tolkien's own drawings and paintings of the peoples and locations of Middle-earth within "Middle-earth Canon"? It seems to me that they clearly fall within the third option on the poll, which refers to his "ideas" being included. Which would mean that any concept of Middle-earth which contradicted any of Tolkien's own illustrations would be non-canonical.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mr U

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

My own position is not 'convoluted' at all. I'm saying the style, mood, tone, the races & even individual characters in TH do not 'fit' with the rest of the Legendarium, & I've given my reasons for that.

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.

I think its clear from the context that CT is refering not to TH as such but to the references to the Legendarium it contains.

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.

How can The Sil not 'fit' when it was first. LotR does fit perfectly the mood & tone of the Sil writings - only TH does not.

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!"

And you're ignoring Tolkien's clear statements about the work being 'peripheral' to the Legendarium in the Letters which I qouted.

Look, we can both bounce quotes from the letters & writings back & forth & get nowhere because Tolkien contradicted himself (never realising that his comments in his letters would be taken as definitive statements). Letters 19 :

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.

& 257

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.

Clearly imply it is not part of the Legendarium in the way The Sil writings & LotR are. But the Letter to Milton Waldman seem to imply the opposite. What we are left with are the texts themselves & the question of whether the individual texts are consistent with each other the only one that isn't is TH, for the reasons I've given.

H-I Sorry, but that's just a satyrical dig at lawyers - it doesn't show a complex social structure.

[Lalwendë]

I'm going to be hypocritical. Just five minutes ago I told davem I wasn't going to be arguing any more today abut this. But then I looked at Christopher Tolkien's introduction to the Sil:

A complete consistency (either within the compass of The Silmarillion itself or between The Silmarillion and other published writings of my father's) is not to be looked for, and could only be achieved, if at all, at heavy and needless cost.

Christopher Tolkien too notes how the pursuit of consistency would have a high cost. Dropping The Hobbit is too high a price to pay for me, as consistency is not half as attractive as is diversity within the legendarium.

[HerenIstarion]

Gosh, davem, even as 'satirical dig', the whole paragraph is the on Angband of a textual evidence of 'social complexity' you seem denying the Hobbit whatsoever!

Would there be LoTR's 'heir and eight signatures in red ink' etc if not for messers. Grubb, Grubb and Burrowes?

(Funny aside fact: Gondolin is mentioned in LoTR 6 times. Gondolin is mentioned in TH 6 times)

But on the whole argument seems to go the way of 'which is more important - the egg or the hen' questions. Yes, without a hen there would be no egg, and hen is much more complex and beautiful and feathery and beady-eyed than egg may ever be, on account of not having eyes and feathers at all, but they are both part of the same circle, and one proceeds from another.

Silmarillion was a beautiful hen, and it laid an egg, which is the Hobbit. I saw an egg, and out of it hatched a cockerel the LoTR is, and I was glad to see both, for the egg had a pearly shell, and the cockerel's song brought me joy, and I went and enquired upon egg's origin, and found the hen. Hen was beautiful in her own right, but I would not learn about her if she hasn’t laid an egg. Poultry keeper (that is, Tolkien) was proud of his hen, but when he discovered an egg one morning, he thought it was not his hen's at all, for A) she laid it over the night, B) he was sure his hen will never lay eggs, but after few days, observing peculiar markings on the shell and its hue, he saw it was indeed egg of his hen.

Now stop quoting his notes of the first few days when he thought the egg was stealthily laid by some kind of cuckoo, and take a look at a cockerel hatched from it, or dare tell me again that cockerels are born directly from hens and eggs are not involved there somewhere in between

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

To change the subject ( ), I found the following comment by Kuruharan on another thread (Melkor's depiction by artists: Flawed?) interesting in this context:

Do we include Tolkien's own drawings and paintings of the peoples and locations of Middle-earth within "Middle-earth Canon"? It seems to me that they clearly fall within the third option on the poll, which refers to his "ideas" being included. Which would mean that any concept of Middle-earth which contradicted any of Tolkien's own illustrations would be non-canonical.

I certainly do include Tolkien's illustrations as canon; with the caveat that he preferred Pauline Baynes' illustrations to his own, in style and spirit (so to speak.) He seemed to enjoy illustrating without feeling that he had mastered the art of it. I guess the way I see it is that the concepts presented in his artwork are canonical, even if one feels that he didn't quite express that concept as well as another artist might have.

Prime example: in the illustration of the front hall of Bag End-- Bilbo quite clearly has normally-proportioned feet. (Hildrebrants, you missed the boat on that one, completely.)

I very much appreciate the artists who took Tolkien's basic design or sketch or visual concept, and added detail and polish. For instance, Nasmith's "The Last Sight" of Hobbiton in the dark is a stunning makeover of Tolkien's original "The Hill".

Also interesting to note that in "The Last Sight", the hobbits have normally proportioned feet. Well done, Nasmith.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

To change the subject ( ), I found the following comment by Kuruharan on another thread (Melkor's depiction by artists: Flawed?) interesting in this context:

Do we include Tolkien's own drawings and paintings of the peoples and locations of Middle-earth within "Middle-earth Canon"? It seems to me that they clearly fall within the third option on the poll, which refers to his "ideas" being included. Which would mean that any concept of Middle-earth which contradicted any of Tolkien's own illustrations would be non-canonical.

You know, I think SpM is on to something here. I believe that in terms of art, the relevant word used to refer to an artist's work is ... oeuvre rather than canon.

And, in fact, good old dictionary.com says

A work of art.
The sum of the lifework of an artist, writer, or composer.

Perhaps we should jettison this word 'canon' rather than any part of the, ah, oeuvre?

Particularly in respect of Tolkien's view of the Machine.

[davem]

Originally Posted by H-I

Gosh, davem, even as 'satyrical dig', the whole paragraph is the on Angband of a textual evidence of 'social complexity' you seem denying the Hobbit whatsoever!

But I think its obvious that Tolkien had not constructed the kind of complex social structure you're talking about for the Shire at that time - it only comes into being with LotR. Any 'social complexity' to be found in that episode is actually the social complexity of our world transferred to the world of Faerie.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by davem

Bilbo in TH is a typical fairy creture.

I'd say you couldn't be more wrong about this. Bilbo is our mediator in the story, the one who we can identify with, really the most humdrum, human character in the whole fantastic world he inhabits.

Originally Posted by davem

LotR does fit perfectly the mood & tone of the Sil writings - only TH does not.

And you can't see that this is your opinion rather than an objective fact?

"Peripheral" is a long way from "nothing to do with Middle-earth" -- do you concede at least that TH takes place in Middle-earth? Even if you don't I give up. For if you are bound and determined to exclude The Hobbit from your conception of the Legendarium, it is your Middle-earth that is diminished, not mine -- a fruitless victory indeed, I should think. And little more than an intellectual exercise, I might add, since you in fact cannot conceive of a M-e canon in which TH does not exist.

It is Flieger's children that I really feel sorry for. Imagine all the richness that is lost to them. Bilbo's past history and friendship with Gandalf that informs the opening chapters of LotR. The encounter with the stone trolls -- confusing. The moon-letters that prefigure the Gates of Moria -- unknown. The whole history of the Riddle Game, and of Sting, and of Bilbo's mithril shirt -- only guessed at. Frodo's conversation in Rivendell with Glóin about Lonely Mountain and what has become of the members of Bilbo's party -- shorn of color and meaning. Geez, a whole layer of subtext to Gimli and Legolas's relationship -- sacrificed to intellectual pretension. The story of the finding of the Ring, the central element in what you consider to be the culmination of the Sil, available only in bare outline. And on and on. A Middle-earth without The Hobbit is impoverished by its absence. Good thing any future davem progeny will have Lalwendë around to see that they are not so deprived!

It's only quite a little book in a wide world after all, but thank goodness for it.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Gosh, davem, even as 'satyrical dig', the whole paragraph is the on Angband of a textual evidence of 'social complexity' you seem denying the Hobbit whatsoever!

Would there be LoTR's 'heir and eight signature in red ink' etc if not for messers Grubb, Grubb and Burrowes?

(funny aside fact: Gondolin is mentioned in LoTR 6 times. Gondolin is mentioned in TH 6 times)

But on the whole argument seems to go the way of 'which is more important - the egg or the hen' questions. Yes, without a hen there would be no egg, and hen is much more complex and beautiful and feathery and beady-eyed than egg may ever be, on account of not having eyes and feathers at all, but they are both part of the same circle, and one proceeds from another.

Silmarillion was a beatiful hen, and it lay an egg, which is the Hobbit. I saw an egg, and out of it hatched a cockerel the LoTR is, and I was glad to see both, for the egg had a pearly shell, and the cockerel's song brought me joy, and I went and enquired upon egg's origin, and found the hen. Hen was beautiful in her own right, but I would not learn about her if she haven't laid an egg. Poultry keeper (that is, Tolkien) was proud of his hen, but when he discovered an egg one morning, he thought it was not his hen's at all, for A) she laid it over the night, B) he was sure his hen will never lay eggs, but after few days, observing peculiar markings on the shell and and its hue, he saw it was indeed egg of his hen.

Now stop quoting his notes of the first few days when he thought the egg was stealthily laid by some kind of cuckoo, and take a look at a cockerel hatched from it, or dare tell me again that cockerels are born directly from hens and eggs are not involved there somewhere in between

This is an amazing post. I'd rep you, but I need to "spread it around" first.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

LotR is the culmination of the whole Legndarium.

. . . .

But I think its obvious that Tolkien had not constructed the kind of complex social structure you're talking about for the Shire at that time - it only comes into being with LotR.

Originally Posted by Mr. Underhill

Good thing any future davem progeny will have Lalwendë around to see that they are not so deprived!

If we are going to discuss progeny here, Mr. U, I suggest that we point out that among all the gods and goddesses it was only Athena who sprang forth fully developed from Numero Uno's mind. There are other varieties of procreation and development and to limit our definition to that of Athena alone is to deny the whole range of ways that, well, things happen.

Would LotR have come about, Athena like, had Tolkien not first written TH? What odds and what objective facts would prove that possibility?

Because I'm both busy this morning and a lazy git, I will copy something from another thread which I think is relevant here.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Many of us come to it [LotR] first for the adventure and the action, but something draws us backto LotR. Or perhaps it is our delight in hobbits that keeps us glued. Or we are entranced by the ways of the elves. Then, something grows on us, something that perhaps develops at the expense of that initial experience, but which could not be possible without that first experience. This seems to be a history for many of us, that we began reading LotR one way, but were drawn back, and came to read it other ways.

from post #158, What Breaks the Enchatment?

Because we can end up in places different from where we started out, does that mean we discount the importance of what set us out in the first place?

[davem]

[QUOTE=Mr UI'd say you couldn't be more wrong about this. Bilbo is our mediator in the story, the one who we can identify with, really the most humdrum, human character in the whole fantastic world he inhabits.[/QUOTE]

What is a hobbit? hobbits need some description nowadays, since they have become rare and shy of the Big People, as they call us .... They are (or were) a little people, about half our height, and smaller than the bearded Dwarves. Hobbits have no beards. There is little or no magic about them, except the ordinary everyday sort which helps them to disappear quietly and quickly when large stupid folk like you and me come blundering along, making a noise like elephants which they can hear a mile off. They are inclined to be fat in the stomach; they dress in bright colours (chiefly green and yellow); wear no shoes, because their feet grow natural leathery soles and thick warm brown hair like the stuff on their heads (which is curly); have long clever brown fingers, goodnatured faces, and laugh deep fruity laughs (especially after dinner, which they have twice a day when they can get it).

I'd say you couldn't be more wrong about this. Bilbo is our mediator in the story, the one who we can identify with, really the most humdrum, human character in the whole fantastic world he inhabits.

I won't cite every single instance in TH of Hobbits being described as a different species from us humans, but there are plenty of them. I think you're reading the Hobbits of LotR back into TH & seeing stuff that isn't there.

"Peripheral" is a long way from "nothing to do with Middle-earth" -- do you concede at least that TH takes place in Middle-earth? Even if you don't I give up. For if you are bound and determined to exclude The Hobbit from your conception of the Legendarium, it is your Middle-earth that is diminished, not mine -- a fruitless victory indeed, I should think. And little more than an intellectual exercise, I might add, since you in fact cannot conceive of a M-e canon in which TH does not exist.

Its not that far from it. I said in an earlier post that TH has the form of a kind of 'fantasia' on Middle-earth. It certainly doesn't take place in the same Middle-earth as LotR - apart from the basic geography being similar.

It is Flieger's children that I really feel sorry for. Imagine all the richness that is lost to them. Bilbo's past history and friendship with Gandalf that informs the opening chapters of LotR. The encounter with the stone trolls -- confusing. The moon-letters that prefigure the Gates of Moria -- unknown. The whole history of the Riddle Game, and of Sting, and of Bilbo's mithril shirt -- only guessed at. Frodo's conversation in Rivendell with Glóin about Lonely Mountain and what has become of the members of Bilbo's party -- shorn of color and meaning. Geez, a whole layer of subtext to Gimli and Legolas's relationship -- sacrificed to intellectual pretension. The story of the finding of the Ring, the central element in what you consider to be the culmination of the Sil, available only in bare outline. And on and on. A Middle-earth without The Hobbit is impoverished by its absence.

I see that again, no-one is actually listening to me. I don't want to deprive anyone of TH. I love TH. Its a question of whether it belongs in the Legendarium, on equal terms with LotR & the Sil writings.

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

The general argument seems to be that because LotR began as a sequel to TH, makes use (only in reference though) to the geography of TH & is referred to in it then TH must be included.

All I see (& maybe I'm wrong here) is people wanting to defend poor little Bilbo from the nasty man who wants to evict him from his home. It seems like from my first suggestion everyone has reacted by saying 'Whoa! I don't like that idea, so I'm going to attack it'. And to be honest, that was my initial reaction on hearing Flieger's statements. However, being that she is one of the world's greatest Tolkien scholars & gave reasoned arguments, I decided to calmly step back & look at what she was saying about TH not fitting into the Legendarium - for all the reasons I've given, & particularly in the light of The Fairy Stories essay, both what Tolkien says in it & the fact, & significance, of when he wrote it. The conclusion I came to was that inclusion of TH into the Legendarium causes far more problems than it solves.

Originally Posted by Bb

Because we can end up in places different from where we started out, does that mean we discount the importance of what set us out in the first place?

I'm not discounting the importance of TH. I'm just saying it belongs outside the Legendarium.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

It certainly doesn't take place in the same Middle-earth as LotR - apart from the basic geography being similar. (emphasis added)

This must be some strange use of the word "similar" that I have not encountered before. Either that or you meant to type "identical" and hit the wrong keys.

Of course The Hobbit takes place in the same Middle-earth as LotR. The characters and events of LotR tell us so.

The general argument seems to be that because LotR began as a sequel to TH, makes use (only in reference though) to the geography of TH & is referred to in it then TH must be included.

Seems pretty watertight to me. You, on the other hand, have only offered in evidence the different style and mood to support excluding it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

This must be some strange use of the word "similar" that I have not encountered before. Either that or you meant to type "identical" and hit the wrong keys.

No - the geography is similar - as CT in HoMe 6 & Douglas Anderson in Annotated Hobbit both point out - the distances & timescale for the respective journeys given in TH do not match those of LotR - this is due to different geography.

Seems pretty watertight to me. You, on the other hand, have only offered in evidence the different style and mood to support excluding it.

No - I offered the differences in races - Trolls, Elves & Dwarves (as Tolkien said they are based on Grimm not in his own Naugrim. I also offered out of place objects & creatures like the Troll's purse & Beorn's animals

[The Saucepan Man]

No - I offered the differences in races - Trolls, Elves & Dwarves (as Tolkien said they are based on Grimm not in his own Naugrim. I also offered out of place objects & creatures like the Troll's purse & Beorn's animals

They are no more out of place than the fox in the Shire.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by davem

The general argument seems to be that because LotR began as a sequel to TH, makes use (only in reference though) to the geography of TH & is referred to in it then TH must be included.

Your general argument seems to be to exclude TH based on your own (and Flieger's) personal taste over all contrary evidence, including references too numerous to mention to TH in LotR as a companion text.

Trolls: The translator conceit allows that various names are normalized into English forms in LotR, and that "Some attempt has been made to represent [the varieties of tongues and dialects spoken by various races] by variations in the kind of English used". Dialects and English names are chalked up to translation by Tolkien himself. Does the normalization of "Galpsi" to "Gamgee" really ruin the magic for you?

Beorn's animals: Nix on Beorn's animals, but okay on talking eagles, werewolves, Telvido, Shadowfax, Queen Beruthiel's Cats, Huan, Ents, huorns, and for that matter, talking swords in the Sil writings? I don't see the problem.

Tra-la-la-lallying Elves: You don't dig the tra-la-lally. Others do, or at least don't have a problem with it. Your opinion is far from conclusive evidence on this matter.

Does this summarize the main "problems" you see TH causing? While you're at it, why don't you tell me which of the "Sil writings" make the cut for the Legendarium and which ones do not.

EDIT: Cross-posted with SPM, who makes some of the same arguments in fewer words.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

They are no more out of place than the fox in the Shire.

I think they are far more out if place - not out of place in TH as a story set in its own little world - but certainly out of place if TH is placed in the Legendarium.

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

Or when I said that the name 'William' for a Troll was wrong, as was the way they spoke - people argue 'Well, we don't know that Trolls in the rest of the Legendarium didn't speak that way or have names like William.' When I then go on & quote from a letter of Tolkien's in which he states that he regretted using the name William or having them say such things as 'Poor little blighter' all those who argued against me suddenly change the subject & just carry on blithely accusing me of not offering any evidence for what I'm saying.

Again, this accusation that I've only cited 'mood & tone' has been repeated ad infinitum, & I've had to respond each time that I've also given examples of the difference between the Elves, Dwarves, Trolls & Hobbits, & the presence of talking purses & animals walking on their hind legs carrying plates, etc. The wrong accusations get repeated, so I'm forced to repeat myself.

Originally Posted by MR U

Beorn's animals: Nix on Beorn's animals, but okay on talking eagles, werewolves, Telvido, Shadowfax, Queen Beruthiel's Cats, Huan, Ents, huorns, and for that matter, talking swords in the Sil writings? I don't see the problem.

Beorn's animals aren't Maiar - they're creatures of fairy story - which is what TH was written as. I don't recall Shadowfax or Beruthiel's cat's walking on their hind legs & carrying plates - or anything remotely similar. Ents & Huorns are a seperate species. Turin's talking sword is an interesting question, but not relevant as far as I can see - its never made clear whether that 'voice' was only heard in Turin's mind for one thing. Its also a not uncommon idea in mythology. But none of this answers the central question - TH was not written to be part of the Legendarium (as LotR was) so should it be included?

Tra-la-la-lallying Elves: You don't dig the tra-la-lally. Others do, or at least don't have a problem with it. Your opinion is far from conclusive evidence on this matter.

I have no problem with them in TH - I like them in TH - but they don't belong in the Legendarium.

Does this summarize the main "problems" you see TH causing? While you're at it, why don't you tell me which of the "Sil writings" make the cut for the Legendarium and which ones do not.

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

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm not discounting the importance of TH. I'm just saying it belongs outside the Legendarium.

And I am suggesting that your reasons for saying it belongs outside the Legendarium are based on a faulty assumption that only linear, logically consistent lines are meaningful in literary creation. TH was the start of something. That something might have ended up somewhat different from its genesis, but to say that TH does not belong with or 'inside' the Legendarium is to force a particular form of relationship on the works, one which denies or overlooks or denigrates the illogic nature of literary creation. It also assumes that you can fully and completely identify "a Legendarium", which is also false. I have suggested this before and Mr. Underhill has also pointed it out. "The Legendarium" existed only as a concept in Tolkien's mind. He never wrote a definitive one. And it is recreated only in the reader's mind.

Originally Posted by davem

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

It does not exist as an objective standard, nor as a logically consistent theorem.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

Originally Posted by HoME 6

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

[...]

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

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

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

And speaking of sidestepping...

Originally Posted by davem

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

Do you, by chance, hold public office?

EDIT:

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mr Underhill

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

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

Originally Posted by Bethberry

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

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

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

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

From On Fairy Stories:

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

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

Originally Posted by Mr U

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Lalwende

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

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

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

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

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

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

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

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

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

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

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

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

Yes, Tolkien incorporated it into the Legendarium.

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

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by davem

as JRRT & CT acknowledge

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

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

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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

LOL!

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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

Ditto.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

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

Amen to that!

[HerenIstarion]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[davem]

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

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

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

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

OK then.

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

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

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