Canon: what ARE we babbling about?

[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.