Canon: what ARE we babbling about?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

Maybe it's a professional ploy. Having so soundly and roundly defended Tolkien against criticism from some academic quarters, perhaps she feels must reaffirm her academic credentials by dissing the 'truly' 'childish' tale, TH. Sometimes all that light up there in the forest canopy makes it hard to see the fecund 'shrooms and ferns--the biodiversity-- a-growin' in the forest floor.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Helen

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

Typical English understatement....

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

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

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

But he never connected TH so thouroughly..

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

Nor is it saying the opposite...

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

[Lalwendë]

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

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

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

[davem]

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

I think that sums up the positions....

And Flieger's argument was well presented & cogent.

As is mine

[Mister Underhill]

Ah, how selectively we quote!

Letter 131 (Expanded Edition):

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

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

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

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

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

Here are a few more Letters extracts for good measure:

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

"I am glad you enjoyed 'the Hobbit'. I have in fact been engaged for ten years on writing another (longer) work about the same world and period of history, in which at any rate all can be learned about the Necromancer and the mines of Moria."
-Letter 114

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

**EDIT:

Oh, and P.S.:

Originally Posted by SPM

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

Word.

[davem]

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

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

davem, I wonder if you'd care to back up some of these assertions that you make with such confidence ("the world of TH is not the world of The Sil", "TH was never written to be part of the Legendarium") with cold hard citations. I'm betting that if you can, I can contradict them with cites that run the other way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even so it (TH) could really stand quite apart, except for the references (quite unneccessary, though they give an impression of historical depth) to the Fall of Gondolin

. .

"I am glad you enjoyed 'the Hobbit'. I have in fact been engaged for ten years on writing another (longer) work about the same world and period of history, in which at any rate all can be learned about the Necromancer and the mines of Moria."
-Letter 114

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

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

[Mister Underhill]

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

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

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

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

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

Originally Posted by davem

Neither was TH. In both Roverandom & TH Tolkien used his existing mythology to provide background & give the illusion of 'depth'. In fact Roverandom refers to the existing mythology far more specifically than TH. TH was written as a fairy story & had to be forced to fit the mythology.

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

Originally Posted by davem

TH was written as a fairy story & had to be forced to fit the mythology. Therefore, unlike all JRRT's other M-e writings it was dragged in.

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

As Mister Underhill said:

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

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

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

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

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

Originally Posted by davem

Dwarves in the Legendarium do not take out musical instruments & sing comic songs. Trolls do not have names like 'Bert, Tom & Bill. Elves do not sing 'Tra-la-la-lally'. If Bilbo Baggins says they did I'd like to know what kind of pipe-weed he was smoking.

Originally Posted by davem

Either Bilbo produced such a travesty of the facts as to call his whole account into question, or we have a totally unrelated story grafted on to the Legendarium - to the disadvantage of both.

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