Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
View Poll Results: Canonicity means: | |||
The author's published works, during his lifetime | 3 | 15.00% | |
The author's published works including those edited/published posthumously | 5 | 25.00% | |
ALL of the author's works, notes, letters, and ideas, published or not, conflicting or not | 9 | 45.00% | |
What the reading community says is Canon | 0 | 0% | |
What the BarrowDowns community says is Canon | 1 | 5.00% | |
What the critics say is Canon | 0 | 0% | |
Canon is whatever I, the reader, want it to be | 1 | 5.00% | |
Something completely (or slightly) different [if you choose this last option, please explain yourself in the thread. Thank you] | 1 | 5.00% | |
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
08-16-2005, 06:17 AM | #1 |
Deadnight Chanter
|
Canon: what ARE we babbling about?
This thread is made following mark 12:30's bidding. It was originally posted by her here, and is reposted with the goal of making a poll out of it.
I suppose she'll post introduction in the post to follow. Or else she may not, as the entries are self-explaining, so plunge in, folks
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
08-16-2005, 06:44 AM | #2 | |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Quote:
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
|
08-16-2005, 12:59 PM | #3 |
Bittersweet Symphony
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the jolly starship Enterprise
Posts: 1,814
|
I'm not really sure what I consider canon, so I am not voting just yet. But I just wanted to say I'm glad this has at last been poll-itized. (And also that option 5 makes me giggle, ie: "The Barrow-Wight told me it's canon, so it must be so!")
|
08-17-2005, 05:01 AM | #4 | |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Quote:
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
|
08-18-2005, 03:56 PM | #5 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
|
The Canon is built from all extant writings. It contains all concepts that do not conflict with either tone or letter of the rest of the canon: for example, we cannot consider The Hobbit strictly canonical due to anomalies (or abandoned ideas). With regard to The Hobbit, it is important to view the story as an embellished or fanciful adventure novel from Bilbo's perspective. When a conflict does arise, the latest writing rules, unless the concepts presented therein are underdeveloped to the point that they create irreconcilable holes in the established mythos. In which case we must consider the ideas to be possible alternatives and investigate the ramifications of accepting them as canonical.
IMO |
08-18-2005, 06:05 PM | #6 | ||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
Of course, you can view The Hobbit in that way if you wish, but it's not compulsory to do so. Nor is it unreasonable to interpret it as a faithful account. As for the poll, Canon is defined in the dictionary (in this context) as: Quote:
Unfortunately, there's no option which precisely matches that, so I'll go with the "published during his lifetime" option, ie his completed works. Edit: Actually, I'll go with the second option, although I would exclude The Silmarillion as edited/adapted by Christopher Tolkien.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! Last edited by The Saucepan Man; 08-18-2005 at 06:08 PM. |
||
08-18-2005, 07:14 PM | #7 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Personally, I love the book, but I can see her point. Those trolls are not 'Middle-earth' trolls, the Rivendell 'Elves' have clearly strayed in from 'Goblin Feet' & don't belong in Middle-earth. I think it was Brian Rosebury who stated that The Hobbit 'changes' its tone with the appearance of Elrond - others have stated that it begins with Gollum's appearance, & certainly the story from that point becomes more serious & darker in tone. But, for all I love the book I'm coming more & more to agree with Flieger. Now, TH is still 'canon' in the sense of being a book Tolkien wrote & published, but is it part of the Middle-earth 'canon'? Well, only if Roverandom (& Goblin feet) is. Actually, I'd say Smith has a greater claim to inclusion in the Legendarium than TH.... |
|
08-18-2005, 07:36 PM | #8 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
They belong in my Middle-earth.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
08-18-2005, 07:43 PM | #9 |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
davem, I disagree. The idea that Elrond is too high and lofty to sing Tra-La-La-Lally is like saying Fordim is too sophisticated to write satire. I just don't buy it.
Take any high-fallutin' professor and set him (or her) in circumstances that bring out their inner glee, and you get child-like behavior. What was it Sam said about Galadriel? High and far-off as a mountain, merry as any lass with daisies in her hair? If Elrond can't crack a joke or join in a drinking game, then he's as grumpy as the movies make him out to be. I don't buy it. Six thousand years old, and he's forgotten how to laugh and sing simple songs? There's also (Tra-La-La-Lally) the fact that The Valley Song is obviously made up on the fly. For fun. Because there are dwarves to tease. I can imagine more than one elf groaning, "Egads, he wrote it down!" On trolls: If Sam's accent can differ from Pippin's, then one neighborhood of trolls can be more cockney than another. And one race of trolls can talk while the others are mute. (I'm not convinced that Mordor-trolls aren't chatty anyway-- I think that's a PJ-ism.) What else? Some of the early wyrms (in the Sil) had no wings. Smaug has wings. Egads, a contradiction! No. Two different kinds of dragons. Just like there were different kinds of orcs; different kinds of hobbits; different kinds of men. THe tone of the books differ-- because Bilbo differs from Frodo, and one story differs from the other. Bilbo's expedition wasn't about the end of the old ways, departure of the elves and the passing of the third age. It was about a treasure hunt.
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. Last edited by mark12_30; 08-19-2005 at 02:23 PM. Reason: spelinng |
08-18-2005, 07:53 PM | #10 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Helen
Ok, that might account for it, but as I said: Quote:
|
|
08-18-2005, 07:56 PM | #11 | |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Quote:
I think the whole "tone" idea is overdone.
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. Last edited by mark12_30; 08-18-2005 at 08:00 PM. |
|
08-18-2005, 08:14 PM | #12 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
I accept that in the secondary world of M-e Bilbo found the Ring more or less as described & had more or less the experiences he had (because LotR states that), but if we're speaking of TH as part of the M-e 'canon', it is out of place, & while it can be read as a wonderfully entertaining story in its own right, it doesn't 'fit' in with the epic, tragic, mood of the rest of the Legendarium. Personally, I cannot see the Elrond (or Glorfindel) of The Sil or LotR 'Tra-la-la-lallying'. TH was not intended to be part of the Legendarium - & neither, at first, was its sequel. If it had been I don't believe the cockney trolls & the 'Tra-la-la-lallying' Elves would have seen the light of day. TH is a book I love, but 'Middle-earth' it depicts is not the Middle-earth of the rest of the Legendarium - because it was never intended to be. I have to stress that I consider TH to be part of the Tolkien canon, & that as a story set in its own secondary world, it works. Its only when it is read as part of the Legendarium, on equal terms with The Sil writings & LotR, that it 'fails'.
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 08-18-2005 at 08:23 PM. |
|
08-18-2005, 08:32 PM | #13 | ||
Stormdancer of Doom
|
We've got a hobbit named "Sam"; do we lose sleep over that? Or over his "Bless me, Mister Frodo" even though there's no church?
Quote:
This tone thing has gone too far. Nobody in Middle-Earth is allowed to have fun. Including the Professor. Quote:
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. Last edited by mark12_30; 08-18-2005 at 08:54 PM. |
||
08-18-2005, 08:44 PM | #14 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
08-18-2005, 08:53 PM | #15 | |||
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Quote:
Elves laugh. THey can be deadly; they can be merry. It's part of their charm. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. Last edited by mark12_30; 08-18-2005 at 09:00 PM. |
|||
08-18-2005, 08:55 PM | #16 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
We'll probably have to agree to disagree. No hard feelings - I hope.
I blame Obloquy for starting this |
08-18-2005, 09:00 PM | #17 | ||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
I think we can get too carried away with defining what is consistent with "the Legendarium." That is all well and appropriate for discussion of the inner consistency of the mythology and for an individual opinion or interpretation of the matter. However, as Helen implies, there are many other works by Tolkien which don't conform strictly to the mythology. But why should the mythology become the defining characteristic? Going by traditional definitions that pertain to literary studies (for what that is worth), here's Dictionary.com's definition of canon: Quote:
This is, of course, just one approach. It is, however, one which acknowledges all works a writer produces, not just those which conform to a standard developed later in life or after death. Notoriously, Tolkien's ideas about Middle-earth changed as he wrote. This is the important thing about him: he did not achieve--and possibly never aspired to--a standard of art which imitated that of the elves. Time is everywhere in his work. Never again would he write in exactly the same style as he did for his children in TH. But he still went on to include silly Tom Bombadil in LOtR and another group of poems. He did not entirely lose a sense of whimsy and silliness. 'Smith' and 'Leaf by Niggle' are his works even if they don't quite fit his foreward to LotR. Writers do not have to be consistent. They just have to be entertaining. And imaginative. And, in the case of fantasy, darn good at depicting a perilous realm. Maybe one way of thinking about this is to acknowledge that for Tolkien, the perilous realm was more than just Middle earth. And more than just tragedy or epic. "prose romance' covers a great deal. Frankly, I agree with SpM that The Silm, as a work pubished after Tolkien's death and substantively editted and revised by Christopher Tolkien, is the questionable work. Without Tolkien pere's imprimateur, it is the Silm that 'fails' (sic), not TH. EDIT: Opps. Cross posting with davem. Yes, blame oblo. The next best thing to Canada.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Last edited by Bęthberry; 08-18-2005 at 09:05 PM. |
||
08-18-2005, 09:04 PM | #18 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 08-18-2005 at 09:09 PM. |
||
08-18-2005, 09:05 PM | #19 | |||
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Quote:
Very well, a truce it is. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. Last edited by mark12_30; 08-18-2005 at 09:12 PM. |
|||
08-18-2005, 09:14 PM | #20 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
And shame on Tolkien for making those changes. It's like an old gaffer embarassed about escapades of his younger self, and attempting to rewrite the historical account. EDIT: Or police explanations about deaths in custody: it might be what they wished to have happened, but that is not an honest reflection of what truly happened. And somewhere along the way, someone or some text gets demonised.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Last edited by Bęthberry; 08-18-2005 at 09:20 PM. |
|
08-18-2005, 09:17 PM | #21 | |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Quote:
Saucie and I disagree that The Hobbit is any less canonical because it has a more whimsical style. Bilbo is just a more whimsical hobbit. Shall we imagine what LotR would have been like had it been penned entirely by Sam? Or Pippin? But though the tone would have been quite different, the tale would not have been less "MIddle-Earth", or less from "The Perilous Realm". Edit: On the changes to The Hobbit: I think they were brilliant. It turns the whole thing into a living tale. "I have Bilbo's *original* version that he told the dwarves! Cool!"
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. Last edited by mark12_30; 08-18-2005 at 09:25 PM. |
|
08-18-2005, 09:26 PM | #22 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
08-18-2005, 09:31 PM | #23 | |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Quote:
And if he had suceeded in completely separating TH from the Sil, then where would his Hobbit Sequel have ended up? LOTR began as a simple Hobbit sequel-- and got "drawn up".
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
|
08-18-2005, 09:44 PM | #24 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
The inconsistency of TH with the rest of the Legendarium nagged at him for a long time. It didn't just produce the alterations to TH itself but The Quest of Erebor as well. |
||
08-19-2005, 12:14 AM | #25 | ||
Deadnight Chanter
|
one of them elaborate explanations, that is
Quote:
(mind you, I had that impression prior to the release of the movies, where, I must admit, PJ grasped the idea wonderfully - the scene in Bilbo's party (Bilbo and children and story of the Trolls) was perfect) Quote:
1. Most of the readers would be lost (I for one - my Tolkien began with the Hobbit) 2. The possibility of publication of the Legendarium itself would be dubious But these are reasons external, not to repeat things already said with regards to reasons internal, let me state my agreement with post #9 Or, simpler - the Hobbit is, more or less, autobiography, it's tone hasn't have to be as lofty as that of a chronicle LoTR is (what with the latter being filled in not only by hobbits, but Gandalfs and Elronds and the like), much less so as of a mythology Silmarillion is. Story of a 'fracas' (I like that word ) in a bar: 1. (Autobiography) Listen, chaps, yesterday, I went to that bar, you know, Marty is a barholder, one with a blue oyester for a sign, and see, it was full of those shaven chaps in leather, and one of them, they called him Grubby or something, you know, kinda looked at me in a funny way, and than he kinda came over and tried to, dunno, sorta hug me, (heh, grubby is a good name, the way he grubs!) and, well, than I've hit him, and his buddies came over me, but I gave one of them, you know, what you chaps call my 'left hook' and he fell over, and than I've kicked another one in the ribs, and than Marty fired a gun, and than I was kinda knocked out and bah! I wake up in a Police station with all those shaven chaps lying around too! And I have this nasty cut behind my ear, don't remember getting it at all 2. (Chronicle) Yesterday, August 18, Mr. George Lashkhi, resident of Chughurety district, Tbilisi, Georgia, was spotted entering the public catering facility under the name of Blue Oyster run by Mr. Marty Smith, Esquire. Mr. Lashkhi was confronted there by Messers. Grubb, Grubb and Barrows, individuals who as reports say, essayed to harass Mr. Lashkhi. In the fracas following encounter of named citizens, three lamps were broken. Police arrived in time, as called for by Mr. Smith, and took all mentioned citizens into the custody. 3. (Myth) So it was that George the Lashkh entered the cursed inn of Blue Oyester, which lies southward of the Mighty Oak of the crossroads, and there coming behind him, Grubb the Smarmy, his brother Grubb the Barmy and their sister-son Barrows the Odious assailed him; and he vanished under the storm of blows. But he dealt them mighty blow of his left arm in return and retreated to the barstand. There he stood and gave way no more. Then all the three swarmed against him, and they bridged the inn with their bodies, but encircled George the Lashkh as a gathering tide about a rock. There as the sun westered on the sixth hour, and the shadow of pine outside made the inn dark, George fell pierced with a venomed shard of glass in his head, and all his valour was vain; for the King's guards came, as treacherous innkeeper lead them in, piled George and his enemies in a heap onto their waggon and took them to King's dungeons
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! Last edited by HerenIstarion; 08-19-2005 at 12:22 AM. |
||
08-19-2005, 02:13 AM | #26 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
H-I Brilliant stuff - as usual. But I can only reiterate my point. I LOVE THE HOBBIT!!! Its far & away one of my favouite books!
What I'm saying is that TH is not necessary to the Legendarium. The necessary information it contains is repeated in LotR. Flieger told us that her children have never read The Hobbit. They began with LotR (at age two apparently!) & have gone on to read some or all of the rest. I believe that a reader who first encounters LotR & then goes on to the Silmarillion before reading TH will not be expecting anything like they get, & is more than likely to find that the cockney trolls & the 'tra-la-la-lallying' Elves will 'break the enchantment' for them. Like you, I read TH first, & may not have read LotR without that experience. It still holds a special place in my heart, but it is not necessary to an understanding of LotR or the Legendarium as a whole & I'd question the extent to which it actually adds anything beyond a warm 'nostalgic' glow to the experience of readers who are already familiar with it. I wouldn't be without it as a work of Tolkien's - anymore than I'd be without Smith or Niggle. I just don't feel it adds anything to the Legendarium itself & for some readers it may actually detract from the 'reality' of the secondary world. |
08-19-2005, 03:40 AM | #27 |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
The Hobbit definitely belongs in the canon/legendarium. I disagreed with what Verlyn Flieger said (davem knows this already ) but more later.
Firstly, regarding the 'tone' of The Hobbit. It is no more variant to the tone of LotR than the Sil is different. On a scale, we have The Hobbit (exuberant and vivid), LotR (epic, and in itself variant in tone), then The Sil (biblical and ponderous and difficult in the narrative sense). Considering that the creation of his work took up most of his life, it is no surprise at all that each work takes on a different tone. If Tolkien had produced reams of books then the changes might appear more gradually, but he published slowly so such differences are more obvious. The Hobbit was written by a younger man, a new father, while LotR was written by a middle aged man, secure in his profession, while the later writings were produced by a man contemplating the end of life. Of course they are all different in tone. Consider also that Tolkien was fastidious, concerned with detail and this makes it more clear why he became disatisfied with The Hobbit at a later stage. That he did experience some regrets is nothing unusual for Tolkien, he expressed regrets about LotR - one of his letters stated that it was finished 'such as it is'; he was never satisfied that his work was perfect. I've often expressed my amazement that there were not many more inconsistencies and mistakes within the Legendarium. Tolkien had only reams of notes and his own capacious memory to assist him in ensuring that what he wrote was not contradictory. In any case, what he wrote in the Hobbit does work. As to whether we have to construct complex arguments to support The Hobbit and what it contains - we don't. We have no more a complex reasoning to produce than we do to fit in other ideas such as Glorfindel appearing twice, or the changes in Galadriel's personality and where Celeborn came from. Now to Flieger. She has recently written on how the works in the Legendarium have the 'conceit' of being translated from old documents. Presumably Tolkien was the translator, and we might expect all the works to have the same tone. But no. Firstly he would have widly differing source materials to work from (any Historian would realise the problems of source materials) and it does not consider when the translator was working - which parts did he translate when he was young, which when old for example. Did he do a 'straight' translation or a 'loaded' one? Which audience was he translating for? So taking these things into consideration, the voices of the original writers are likely to be different. Bilbo narrates The Hobbit, Frodo, sam, Merry and Pippin the LotR, and the Elves the Sil. Now consider Bilbo. He is what we today would definitely term 'middle class'. Here is where Flieger displayed a lack of knowledge/awareness of the British class system in her argument, stating that Bilbo was Upper Class, representing the 'What Ho?' sporty type. No, Bilbo, like Tolkien, was middle class through and through, slightly patronising to the working class, and disparaging of the upper class. His nerves over serving up all his nice cake to the Dwarves and feeling all flustered and not wanting to appear 'rude' are perfectly middle-class (if there was radio in The Shire, he'd have been an avid listener of the Test Match ). This is who is narrating The Hobbit. He is akin to an older Daily Mail reader - not strident but quietly suspicious of things which may upset his comfortable routine. He is suspicious of 'foreigners', he thinks the effete Elves are a bit silly, and the trolls are 'uncouth'. Add to this that Bilbo loved to tell stories. This was his one great adventure, and he loved to tell people about it. Stories grow in the telling, and they alter, and he no doubt added colourful detail. Flieger's argument used as a central thesis a point about the British class system that she had failed to understand. It also did not take into account whether the translator was working 'straight' or with an agenda. Finally, we couldn't manage LotR without The Hobbit. Just one of the very good reasons for this is Gollum. Without having met him first and built up a feeling of both fear and pity for the creature, we do not have the same sense of him when we read LotR. When he finally catches up with Frodo we have already seen him with another Hobbit, we would not have that frisson of excitement and fear and wonder. I know davem's going to argue with me...
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
08-19-2005, 04:09 AM | #28 | |||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
Quote:
HerenIstarion - you are a master of analogy. But with this one, you have excelled even your own high standards! It illustrates the distinction between pertinent facts and entertaining detail perfectly. Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|||
08-19-2005, 04:38 AM | #29 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
And, let's not forget that the main reason LotR is dismissed by so many critics as a 'children's' book is because it is read in the light if TH. From that perspective TH may have done more harm to Tolkien's literary reputation than good.
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 08-19-2005 at 04:51 AM. |
||
08-19-2005, 04:44 AM | #30 | ||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
No, it is part of Tolkien's canon. EDIT: Quote:
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Last edited by Bęthberry; 08-19-2005 at 04:56 AM. |
||
08-19-2005, 07:20 AM | #31 | ||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
Quote:
It’s your opinion that it fits only weakly, and you are obviously entitled to it. But, from what has been said so far, others are clearly of a different opinon. For my part, I do not see the expanations that Helen, HI and Lalwendë have given as being over-elaborate. The explanation that Bilbo was exagerrating much of it, however, I do find unconvincing. Bilbo the whimsical I can accept. Bilbo as Walter Mitty I cannot.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
||
08-19-2005, 07:32 AM | #32 | |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Quote:
If you are saying that TH is not an integral part of the Sil, I agree with you. It ain't. But it arose out of the same compost (so to speak) and is part of the same forest.
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. Last edited by mark12_30; 08-19-2005 at 07:36 AM. |
|
08-19-2005, 09:39 AM | #33 | |
Dread Horseman
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Behind you!
Posts: 2,743
|
davem, I wonder if you'd care to back up some of these assertions that you make with such confidence ("the world of TH is not the world of The Sil", "TH was never written to be part of the Legendarium") with cold hard citations. I'm betting that if you can, I can contradict them with cites that run the other way. Here's a sample:
Quote:
|
|
08-19-2005, 10:17 AM | #34 | ||
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
|
Geez, it's amazing how often I have to settle this issue for you all...
According to the OED: Quote:
Quote:
a) compelled to accept what the author has written b) willing to accept what the author has written c) free to accept what the author has written, or d) couldn't care less what the author has written is another issue entirely.
__________________
Scribbling scrabbling. |
||
08-19-2005, 10:17 AM | #35 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
|
The Hobbit fixes its own discrepancies by recognizing Bilbo as the author rather than Tolkien. He was writing an adventure story, not annals of Middle-earth. I asserted that it is not strictly canonical mythology-wise because Bilbo did not necessarily have this fidelity to fact in mind when writing it. The events presented in the book are still "true" events in the course of the Third Age, but the details, in my opinion, should be considered "flexible."
|
08-19-2005, 11:41 AM | #36 | ||||||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
Neither was TH. In both Roverandom & TH Tolkien used his existing mythology to provide background & give the illusion of 'depth'. In fact Roverandom refers to the existing mythology far more specifically than TH. TH was written as a fairy story & had to be forced to fit the mythology. Therefore, unlike all JRRT's other M-e writings it was dragged in. The only other example of this being done by Tolkien was in the Figures of Tom Bombadil & Goldberry, who take on a completely different form when they appear in LotR to the ones they had in the original poem. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As to the letter you quote. Again - Tolkien used elements from the existing mythology to create an illusion of 'depth'. He used it in the same way in both TH & Roverandom. If you accept one as an intentional addition to the Legendarium I'd like to see how you reject the other. [b]Fordim[/i] I'm arguing about the 'canon' within the 'Canon'. I'm talking about what is 'canonical' within the Legendarium, the History of Middle-earth, not the wider 'Canon' of Tolkien's writing. Quote:
TH is a beautiful fairy story, very imperfectly assimilated into the Legendarium - not because Tolkien was a bad writer/adaptor, but because the story was being put to a use for which it was not originally intended. It does not belong in the Legendarium in the form in which it exists. I admire all the attempts being made to 'explain' Bilbo's 'exagerations', but there's such a thing as 'straining at a gnat & swallowing a camel.' What is of value in TH to the Legendarium as a work of literary Art (or Genius), is to be found in the pages of LotR. In itself it contains some wonderful episodes & the second half in particular is a very powerful & moving story, but it just doesn't fit at all comfortably with what precedes or follows it. |
||||||
08-19-2005, 12:12 PM | #37 | |||
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Quote:
Dwarves, and elves, singing comic songs-- that's like saying, because the story of Henry V is so majestic, nobody in the battle of Agincourt has a sense of humor. It doesn't follow. Galadriel being "Merry as any lass with daisies in her hair in springtime" disproves it. The idea that any playfulness is verboten, any comic relief is out of place, doesn't hold water in LOTR. Humor even shows up in the Sil, although it's a bit harder to find. "Nonetheless they will have need of wood." Quote:
Quote:
After all this I do notice that you haven't voted (few have.) Are you casting your vote for the final "Other" and submitting your new definition?
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
|||
08-19-2005, 12:43 PM | #38 |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Whatever the 'tone' or more aptly, style, of The Hobbit, it still would not be enough reason to exclude it from the Legendarium. It includes tales of things which are relevant to LotR and relevant to Middle-earth and so it is included, just as would be Adventures of Tom Bombadil. Whether it is serious or not is no justification for leaving it out. Jane Austen wrote Northanger Abbey as a satire and it is very different in tone to Persuasion but we do not cast it aside in considering her work.
As has already been pointed out many times, Tolkien was a perfectionist. It is lucky that anything was published from his Legendarium, and I am sure he would have jumped at the chance to revise LotR - his letters following it are filled with explanations, some of which seem to be highly revisionist. If the world in which The Hobbit takes place was not meant to be part of the Legendarium then what do we say about The Shire? The character of Bilbo as introduced in The Hobbit is an archetypal Hobbit, certainly at first before he goes off on his adventures, and for a good way into the tale he remains the uncertain and slightly sceptical character we first meet. When we get to LotR we are thoroughly convinced that Hobbits and The Shire are things worth saving, we do not need to be convinced that the Ring is a threat because we know. Even in the films there had to be a prologue because the story simply would not have been 'set up' enough. I feel sorry for anyone who has not started with The Hobbit as it prepares us for what is to come. Even if Tolkien genuinely hated The Hobbit (and I don't think he did - he was merely being perfectionist as usual) then the fact cannot be altered that it was published prior to LotR and without it there wouldn't even have been LotR. It is a fitting prologue to the longer work. OK, so we might read LotR very well without it as we can get 'the basics' from the later text, but it is a sorry state of affairs when we are told that it is not necessary as though reading Tolkien's work was merely an ordeal to be got through. Where is the magic in that? We might as well read Brodies' Notes and have done. Flieger's argument sounded rather like a long-winded way of trying to justify why she didn't like The Hobbit and it didn't work as an argument as she contradicts herself.
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
08-19-2005, 12:55 PM | #39 | ||||||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(Flieger's argument didn't sound 'self-contradictory' to me....waits for slap )
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 08-19-2005 at 01:07 PM. |
||||||
08-19-2005, 01:02 PM | #40 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|