Canon: what ARE we babbling about?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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

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

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

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Helen

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

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

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

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

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

[HerenIstarion]

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

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

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

Originally Posted by davem

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

Can't agree less

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[davem]

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

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

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

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

[Lalwendë]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

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

Originally Posted by davem

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

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