[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

But sice I am attacked for illogicality ...

Oh, but I'm not attacking you, Mithalwen. And I am the first to defend people's rights to their opinions (well, most opinions anyway). I am simply trying to understand your position, which I must admit to finding somewhat illogical. It seems to me that if one starts to question the veracity of matters that are presented as facts in a fantasy tale, then the question arises: where do you draw the line?

Taken to its extreme, this approach would have us dismissing both The Hobbit and LotR as the crazed ramblings of a few insane Hobbits. But then Hobbits are fantasy creatures, so where would that leave us ...?

I suppose I prefer the explanations that gel with the "laws" of the created universe rather than say "it is fantasy, roll with it" .

Well, I did offer some explanations that I feel work within the context of the world presented to us by Tolkien.

Also I feel that there is a sense in which the Silmarillion tales are "mythicised" and the Hobbit is "fairytale" whereas LOTR is history/documentary...

I can understand that as a reaction to their differing styles. But all three books are set in the same world, and they are very much inter-connected, particularly The Hobbit and LotR but also the Silm with both of them. So I do feel that, if one is to be treated as presenting the 'facts' about a particular period in Middle-earth's history, then the others should (in the absence of any inconsistencies) be treated in similar fashion.

Ulp! This is beginning to sound too much like an entry on the dreaded C-thread. I'd best stop before any of the other regulars catch on.