Message-ID: <37A4F9C6.A043475A@mediaone.net> From: Cian X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-MOENE (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Elven hair colour was(Re: Aragorn Movie casting) References: <37a21675.28220833@news.supernews.com> <19990731093032.24260.00002881@ngol02.aol.com> <37a41f7a.1923836@news.cc.tut.fi> <7o2kgs$7kg$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 29 Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 21:52:06 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.128.99.214 X-Complaints-To: abuse@mediaone.net X-Trace: ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net 933558761 24.128.99.214 (Sun, 01 Aug 1999 21:52:41 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 21:52:41 EDT Organization: Road Runner Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!netnews.com!chnws02.mediaone.net!24.128.1.101!chnws05.ne.mediaone.net!24.128.60.9!ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Aris Katsaris wrote: > > Legolas has a dark hair. > > Is this from the books? I don't believe Tolkien ever wrote about the colour > of his hair one way or another, but I always imagined him blonde. From Appendix F Tolkien describes his Eldar: "They were tall, fair of skin and grey-eyed, though their locks were dark, save in the golden house of Finarfin; ..." Legolas as a Sindarin prince would likely have dark hair then, under this general rule -- Tolkien seems to make note of any exceptions like Galadriel, Glorfindel, and the silver haired Celeborn. Tolkien describes Legolas' head at least, in "The Great River": (albeit the scene is at night-- but I like the visual image it conjures up so I'm including it anyway :-)) "Frodo looked up at the Elf standing tall above him, as he gazed into the night, seeking a mark to shoot at. His head was dark, crowned with sharp white stars that glittered in the black pools of the sky behind." Cheers, Cian ###### From: jeoppete@aol.com (Kingasaurus) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Elven hair colour was(Re: Aragorn Movie casting) Lines: 23 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder05.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 02 Aug 1999 03:47:02 GMT References: <37A4F9C6.A043475A@mediaone.net> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19990801234702.29220.00005438@ng-cd1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail <> You mean like blond Thranduil, Legolas' father? Hmmm..... <<"Frodo looked up at the Elf standing tall above him, as he gazed into the night, seeking a mark to shoot at. His head was dark, crowned with sharp white stars that glittered in the black pools of the sky behind.">>> Yeah, but as you already mentioned, the scene is at night. Very ambiguous. Look, if these issues WEREN'T ambiguous, we wouldn't still be arguing about them 26 years after the author's death. -Pete " I know what fakery looks like" -James Randi ###### Message-ID: <37A59091.5739E717@mediaone.net> From: Cian X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-MOENE (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Elven hair colour was(Re: Aragorn Movie casting) References: <37a21675.28220833@news.supernews.com> <19990731093032.24260.00002881@ngol02.aol.com> <37a41f7a.1923836@news.cc.tut.fi> <7o2kgs$7kg$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> <37A4F9C6.A043475A@mediaone.net> <7o3jtp$6g8$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 46 Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 08:35:29 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.128.99.214 X-Complaints-To: abuse@mediaone.net X-Trace: ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net 933597366 24.128.99.214 (Mon, 02 Aug 1999 08:36:06 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 08:36:06 EDT Organization: Road Runner Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!chnws02.mediaone.net!24.128.1.101!chnws05.ne.mediaone.net!24.128.60.9!ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Aris Katsaris wrote: > > From Appendix F Tolkien describes his Eldar: > > > > "They were tall, fair of skin and grey-eyed, though their locks were dark, > save > > in the golden house of Finarfin; ..." > > This is a mistake. As seen from 'History in Middle Earth' Tolkien originally > intended this passage to describe the *Noldor* alone, who are dark-hair > except in the golden house of Finarfin. After all all of the Vanyar are also > golden-haired. The mistake that Christopher points out is rather -- that when his father "carefully remodeled the passage" (ie. to include all the Eldar) his father apparently forgot the hair-colour of the -Vanyar-, while also noting that that detail may have not been worked out at the time. Legolas is not Vanyarin of course, so that possible error does not apply I think. > We have no evidence about the hair-color of the Teleri, Sindar or Silvan. If > anything Sindar elves like Thingol, Celeborn and Cindar had silver hair. But that is evidence in itself -- some of the Telerin nobles had silver hair. Also and again, we see Tolkien pointing out the exception to the rule, as he does with the golden strain within the Noldor. (Finarfin --through Vanyarin genes) I think you mean Cirdan there at the end, but his 'appearance' is another matter. > Was Thranduil a Sinda, or a Silvan elf? I can't remember. Sinda. > > that glittered in the black pools of the sky behind." > > Everyone's head is dark during the night. Ambiguous. > > Aris Katsaris Yes, that's why I included my "however" line with smiley face. I just liked the quote. Cheers, Cian ###### From: "Aris Katsaris" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Elven hair colour was(Re: Aragorn Movie casting) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 11:09:17 +0300 Organization: An OTEnet S.A. customer Lines: 52 Message-ID: <7o3jtp$6g8$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> References: <37a21675.28220833@news.supernews.com> <19990731093032.24260.00002881@ngol02.aol.com> <37a41f7a.1923836@news.cc.tut.fi> <7o2kgs$7kg$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> <37A4F9C6.A043475A@mediaone.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: athe530-g088.otenet.gr X-Trace: newssrv.otenet.gr 933581561 6664 195.167.116.216 (2 Aug 1999 08:12:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@otenet.gr NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Aug 1999 08:12:41 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!news.otenet.gr!not-for-mail Cian wrote in message news:37A4F9C6.A043475A@mediaone.net... > > > Aris Katsaris wrote: > > > > Legolas has a dark hair. > > > > Is this from the books? I don't believe Tolkien ever wrote about the colour > > of his hair one way or another, but I always imagined him blonde. > > From Appendix F Tolkien describes his Eldar: > > "They were tall, fair of skin and grey-eyed, though their locks were dark, save > in the golden house of Finarfin; ..." This is a mistake. As seen from 'History in Middle Earth' Tolkien originally intended this passage to describe the *Noldor* alone, who are dark-hair except in the golden house of Finarfin. After all all of the Vanyar are also golden-haired. We have no evidence about the hair-color of the Teleri, Sindar or Silvan. If anything Sindar elves like Thingol, Celeborn and Cindar had silver hair. > Legolas as a Sindarin prince would likely have dark hair then, under this > general rule Was Thranduil a Sinda, or a Silvan elf? I can't remember. > -- Tolkien seems to make note of any exceptions like Galadriel, > Glorfindel, and the silver haired Celeborn. > > Tolkien describes Legolas' head at least, in "The Great River": (albeit the > scene is at night-- but I like the visual image it conjures up so I'm including > it anyway :-)) > > "Frodo looked up at the Elf standing tall above him, as he gazed into the night, > seeking a mark to shoot at. His head was dark, crowned with sharp white stars > that glittered in the black pools of the sky behind." Everyone's head is dark during the night. Ambiguous. Aris Katsaris ###### Message-ID: <37A5BB91.BD9E4D7C@mediaone.net> From: Cian X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-MOENE (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Elven hair colour was(Re: Aragorn Movie casting) References: <37A4F9C6.A043475A@mediaone.net> <19990801234702.29220.00005438@ng-cd1.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 34 Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 11:38:57 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.128.99.214 X-Complaints-To: abuse@mediaone.net X-Trace: ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net 933608373 24.128.99.214 (Mon, 02 Aug 1999 11:39:33 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 11:39:33 EDT Organization: Road Runner Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer1.nac.net!netnews.com!chnws02.mediaone.net!24.128.1.101!chnws05.ne.mediaone.net!24.128.60.9!ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Kingasaurus wrote: -- > .>>Tolkien seems to make note of any exceptions like Galadriel, Glorfindel, and > the silver haired Celeborn. > > You mean like blond Thranduil, Legolas' father? Hmmm..... True, Thranduil is described as such in the Hobbit, but I am inclined to follow what I view as pertinent description in LOTR's and later writings (check out the colour description of some of the dwarf's beards in the Hobbit!) If Thranduil is a blond Sindarin king then so be it, but I personally think that Thranduil's 'do' had very little to do with Tolkien's later reasoning of why a select number of the Eldar are blond. 1) The Vanyar are a golden haired people, and are the -least numerous- of the kindreds. 2) The Noldor are a dark haired people, except where noted (and why- Vanyarin influence) 3) Some Telerin nobles have silver hair -- another noted exception to what must be dark hair considering that the Eldar have dark hair as a rule, excepting the just mentioned Vanyarin influence. IMo, basically this implies a preponderance of dark-haired Eldar, especially of those dwelling in M-earth; and I can't think why Tolkien should make obvious note of the Vanyarin and Telerin attributes in LOTR's, but leave out yet another supposed Sindarin exception to the rule in his main Elven character, the mighty Legolas. Cheers, Cian ###### From: "Öjevind Lång" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <37a21675.28220833@news.supernews.com> <19990731093032.24260.00002881@ngol02.aol.com> <37a41f7a.1923836@news.cc.tut.fi> <7o2kgs$7kg$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> <37A4F9C6.A043475A@mediaone.net> <7o3jtp$6g8$1@newssrv.otenet.gr> Subject: Re: Elven hair colour was(Re: Aragorn Movie casting) Lines: 35 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: <4fgp3.172$i%3.203@nntpserver.swip.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.244.54.180 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 933597248 130.244.54.180 (Mon, 02 Aug 1999 14:34:08 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 14:34:08 MET DST Organization: A Customer of Tele2 X-Sender: s-774765@dialup54-3-52.swipnet.se Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 14:30:24 +0200 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail Aris Katsaris hath written: >Cian wrote in message >news:37A4F9C6.A043475A@mediaone.net... >> >> >> Aris Katsaris wrote: >> >> > > Legolas has a dark hair. >> > > >This is a mistake. As seen from 'History in Middle Earth' Tolkien originally >intended this passage to describe the *Noldor* alone, who are dark-hair >except in the golden house of Finarfin. After all all of the Vanyar are also >golden-haired. > >We have no evidence about the hair-color of the Teleri, Sindar or Silvan. If >anything Sindar elves like Thingol, Celeborn and Cindar had silver hair. > >> Legolas as a Sindarin prince would likely have dark hair then, under this >> general rule > >Was Thranduil a Sinda, or a Silvan elf? I can't remember. Thranduil was a Sinda. Öjevind ###### From: jeoppete@aol.com (Kingasaurus) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Elven hair colour was(Re: Aragorn Movie casting) Lines: 33 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder05.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 02 Aug 1999 16:26:06 GMT References: <37A5BB91.BD9E4D7C@mediaone.net> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19990802122606.21543.00001385@ng-xd1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed.nacamar.de!europa.netcrusader.net!205.231.82.12!newsrouter.icnc.com!portc04.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail ----True, Thranduil is described as such in the Hobbit, but I am inclined to follow what I view as pertinent description in LOTR's and later writings (check out the colour description of some of the dwarf's beards in the Hobbit!) If Thranduil is a blond Sindarin king then so be it, but I personally think that Thranduil's 'do' had very little to do with Tolkien's later reasoning of why a select number of the Eldar are blond.----- Maybe, but then we get into the extremely sticky and impossible-to-resolve argument which asks: Which parts of "The Hobbit" can safely be considered canonical, and which parts can we throw out as early literary anachronisms devoutly to be ignored - and WHY? Is it safe to assume that the "stone giants" are one of Bilbo's fairy-tale embellishments to his memoirs, while his acts of slaying the spiders in Mirkwood with Sting "actually" happened? Where is that particular line in the sand drawn? Where does the blond Elven-King fit into this mess? Even though JRR originally wrote the Hobbit distinct from his early Sil (and in a children's style), he later was forced to "fit" the Hobbit into his universe, as is shown by LOTR and Unfinished Tales. I can certainly visualize (in my mind's eye) Tolkien re-writing the Hobbit so that it matches the more adult style of LOTR, while telling the exact same story of the Quest of Erebor. So....which "fairy-tale"-sounding details would go, and which details would stay, if he had ever - hypothetically - engaged in such a rewrite? Sticky, indeed.... -Pete " I know what fakery looks like" -James Randi ###### From: jblanks@mindspring.com (Jeff Blanks) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Elven hair colour was(Re: Aragorn Movie casting) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 23:58:45 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <37A5BB91.BD9E4D7C@mediaone.net> <19990802122606.21543.00001385@ng-xd1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.ae.d3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Server-Date: 4 Aug 1999 04:05:17 GMT X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b13 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer1.nac.net!netnews.com!europa.netcrusader.net!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!firehose.mindspring.com!jblanks jeoppete@aol.com (Kingasaurus) wrote: > Where does the blond Elven-King fit into this mess? Side note: It's been noted that the gene for blond hair in humans is recessive. What would that mean for his kids? Personally, I've noted that _most_ of the Elves whose hair JRRT mentions at all are blonds--as if he's got a thing for blondness or something. -- "Americans never solve their problems; they just amiably bid them good-bye." --George Santayana ###### From: jblanks@mindspring.com (Jeff Blanks) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Elven hair colour was(Re: Aragorn Movie casting) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 23:58:45 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <37A5BB91.BD9E4D7C@mediaone.net> <19990802122606.21543.00001385@ng-xd1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.ae.d3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Server-Date: 4 Aug 1999 04:05:17 GMT X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b13 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer1.nac.net!netnews.com!europa.netcrusader.net!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!firehose.mindspring.com!jblanks jeoppete@aol.com (Kingasaurus) wrote: > Where does the blond Elven-King fit into this mess? Side note: It's been noted that the gene for blond hair in humans is recessive. What would that mean for his kids? Personally, I've noted that _most_ of the Elves whose hair JRRT mentions at all are blonds--as if he's got a thing for blondness or something. -- "Americans never solve their problems; they just amiably bid them good-bye." --George Santayana ###### From: jeoppete@aol.com (Kingasaurus) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Elven hair colour was(Re: Aragorn Movie casting) Lines: 10 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 04 Aug 1999 04:23:18 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19990804002318.21538.00002218@ng-xd1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail << > Where does the blond Elven-King fit into this mess? Side note: It's been noted that the gene for blond hair in humans is recessive. What would that mean for his kids? >> Depends. What color is his wife's hair? :) " I know what fakery looks like" -James Randi ###### From: "db" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Elven hair colour was(Re: Aragorn Movie casting) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 15:15:30 +0200 Organization: A2000 Kabeltelevisie en Telecommunicatie Message-ID: <7o9e6q$rf3$1@weber.a2000.nl> References: <37A5BB91.BD9E4D7C@mediaone.net> <19990802122606.21543.00001385@ng-xd1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: node11aae.a2000.nl X-Trace: weber.a2000.nl 933772314 28131 24.132.26.174 (4 Aug 1999 13:11:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@a2000.nl NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Aug 1999 13:11:54 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Lines: 10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-kar1.dfn.de!newsfeed.nacamar.de!newsfeed.nacamar.de!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!colt.net!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!pascal.a2000.nl!not-for-mail Jeff Blanks wrote in message ... >Personally, I've noted that _most_ of the Elves whose hair JRRT mentions >at all are blonds--as if he's got a thing for blondness or something. Don't we all? db ###### From: "Panacea" Subject: Re: :-) Elven hair colour was(Re: Aragorn Movie casting) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <19990806030651.14800.00003303@ng-cj1.aol.com> Message-ID: <01bedfeb$4a95ea40$d6041ad8@default> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Lines: 18 Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 09:10:14 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.26.4.214 X-Complaints-To: news@teleport.com X-Trace: news1.teleport.com 933930614 216.26.4.214 (Fri, 06 Aug 1999 02:10:14 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 02:10:14 PDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!nntp.teleport.com!news1.teleport.com!not-for-mail To be totally flippant about it, has it occurred to anyone that the elf in question, being immortal, could very well have got bored with his natural hair color at some point and dyed or bleached it? Sure, the text doesn't say he did, and the text offers no circumstantial evidence that I recollect for elves or anyone else altering their hair color, but if he's got one color hair in the first age and another color hair in the third age, and the change isn't due to natural physical aging, the simple answer can be found in a bottle on the supermarket shelf, or, in M.E., concocted out of herbs and berries and such. Thena really should NOT read newsgroups when sleep deprived. ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Elven hair colour was(Re: Aragorn Movie casting) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 22:01:14 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 90 Message-ID: References: <37A5BB91.BD9E4D7C@mediaone.net> <19990802122606.21543.00001385@ng-xd1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: <19990802122606.21543.00001385@ng-xd1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On 2 Aug 1999, Kingasaurus wrote: > ----True, Thranduil is described as such in the Hobbit, but I am > inclined to follow what I view as pertinent description in LOTR's and > later writings (check out the colour description of some of the dwarf's > beards in the Hobbit!) If Thranduil is a blond Sindarin king then so be > it, but I personally think that Thranduil's 'do' had very little to do > with Tolkien's later reasoning of why a select number of the Eldar are > blond.----- > Maybe, but then we get into the extremely sticky and > impossible-to-resolve argument which asks: Which parts of "The Hobbit" > can safely be considered canonical, and which parts can we throw out as > early literary anachronisms devoutly to be ignored - and WHY? I'm not sure I can give an answer because I'm not sure I agree with the question. I'm not sure what you mean by "canonical". Clearly, all of the accounts given in LOTR are intended to be translations of accounts that were written by hobbits. We may assume that they are all substantially accurate and wholly honest, but perhaps not entirely verbatim descriptions of dialogue. Some of the accounts are based on first-person experience, and others are based on research by these same hobbits interviewing the non-hobbit participants in the War of the Ring. The events in "The Hobbit" are supposed to be based on Bilbo's own writings, and this, in and of itself, is enough to explain certain deviations of style and attitude from the later books. The account of the riddle-game from the 1937 edition has been explained and incorporated into the ongoing story, even though it is now considered false. But this lie was, as is pointed out in LOTR, very uncharacteristic of Bilbo, and so there is no reason to assume that anything else in "The Hobbit" (or anything at all in the revised edition) is wrong or inaccurate. > Is it safe to assume that the "stone giants" are one of Bilbo's fairy-tale > embellishments to his memoirs, Not at all. Bilbo never says he saw giants in the flesh. He heard their voices and saw the rocks they hurled. He probably heard Gandalf or the Dwarves talk about these forces as though they were personal beings. It is already established and confirmed by LOTR that the Misty Mountains are haunted by powerful spirits of various sorts. Remeber Caradras? Bilbo's account is entirely honest, and not an "embelishment". It's just that what these "giants" actually were is uncertain, and subject to interpretation. Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with the idea that there were some really big guys up there hurling rocks. > while his acts of slaying the spiders in > Mirkwood with Sting "actually" happened? Of course they did. Besides which, those spiders are referred to in LOTR as being the lesser descendents of Shellob. > Where is that particular line in the > sand drawn? We don't need to draw a line. Tolkien has already done it for us. Everything in "The Hobbit" may be assumed to be honest and accurate, except for the original 1937 account of the Riddle-Game, and any other minor inaccuracies that were revised for the later edition. > Where does the blond Elven-King fit into this mess? Clearly, he was blond. > Even though JRR > originally wrote the Hobbit distinct from his early Sil (and in a children's > style), he later was forced to "fit" the Hobbit into his universe, as is shown > by LOTR and Unfinished Tales. I can certainly visualize (in my mind's eye) > Tolkien re-writing the Hobbit so that it matches the more adult style of LOTR, > while telling the exact same story of the Quest of Erebor. I dislike the idea. What would be the point? Are people upset that the book makes fun of Gandalf or something? I guess Bilbo just wasn't as reverent toward him as were the later chroniclers. > So....which "fairy-tale"-sounding details would go, and which details > would stay, if he had ever - hypothetically - engaged in such a rewrite? He already engaged in a rewrite. What he chose to revise are already a matter of record. AFAIK, only the riddle-game was significantly revised, and even here the original account was "kept" in a certain sense, as a plot point in the ongoing story of the Ring. > Sticky, indeed.... Not at all. It is all perfectly straight. ###### Message-ID: <37AA5679.BB3063C2@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.36 i686) X-Accept-Language: en-US,en-GB,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Elven hair colour was(Re: Aragorn Movie casting) References: <37A5BB91.BD9E4D7C@mediaone.net> <19990802122606.21543.00001385@ng-xd1.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 28 NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.161.15.62 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 933909909 206.161.15.62 (Thu, 05 Aug 1999 23:25:09 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 23:25:09 EDT Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 23:28:57 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hub1.ispnews.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail John Whelan wrote: > > On 2 Aug 1999, Kingasaurus wrote: ... > > Where is that particular line in the > > sand drawn? > > We don't need to draw a line. Tolkien has already done it for us. > Everything in "The Hobbit" may be assumed to be honest and accurate, > except for the original 1937 account of the Riddle-Game, and any other > minor inaccuracies that were revised for the later edition. And where exactly do you put the rest of Tolkien's writings? When you get down to level of detail that is typical of this newsgroup, they contradict each other. The question of which source is to be preferred is far from trivial. ... > > by LOTR and Unfinished Tales. I can certainly visualize (in my mind's eye) > > Tolkien re-writing the Hobbit so that it matches the more adult style of LOTR, > > while telling the exact same story of the Quest of Erebor. > > I dislike the idea. What would be the point? Are people upset that the > book makes fun of Gandalf or something? I guess Bilbo just wasn't as > reverent toward him as were the later chroniclers. It isn't just the issue of reverance in attitude, but in the seriousness of the material, and consistency with Tolkien's other writings. ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Elven hair colour was(Re: Aragorn Movie casting) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 02:06:25 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 73 Message-ID: References: <37A5BB91.BD9E4D7C@mediaone.net> <19990802122606.21543.00001385@ng-xd1.aol.com> <37AA5679.BB3063C2@wizard.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: <37AA5679.BB3063C2@wizard.net> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.cwix.com!165.113.238.17!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, James Kuyper Jr. wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > > > On 2 Aug 1999, Kingasaurus wrote: > ... > > > Where is that particular line in the > > > sand drawn? > > > > We don't need to draw a line. Tolkien has already done it for us. > > Everything in "The Hobbit" may be assumed to be honest and accurate, > > except for the original 1937 account of the Riddle-Game, and any other > > minor inaccuracies that were revised for the later edition. > > And where exactly do you put the rest of Tolkien's writings? When you > get down to level of detail that is typical of this newsgroup, they > contradict each other. What other writings are you referring to? Do you mean the ones he never published? Do you mean the ones he never finished? > The question of which source is to be preferred > is far from trivial. The question may not be trivial, but neither is it difficult. Clearly, the works that he actually finished and published are the ones that take precedence. There are only two such books. They are The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was not some damned George Lucas. He did not go around constantly changing his mind, and then expecting his readers to swallow it because that was what he "always intended". He valued the suspension of disbelief, and knew that if his readers were to take him seriously he had to be consistent with what he had already put forth. Yes, he did revise chapter 5 of "The Hobbit". But first he made sure that he had a damn good explanation for the fact that two different versions existed -- one that was consistent with suspension of disbelief. He did not say (like a George Lucas) "I changed my mind, and its my creation anyway, so fuck you all". Instead he allowed both versions of the story to exist, explained why one was false, and allowed that lie to be a significant point in the ongoing story. If he had ever gotten around to publishing his other works, I imagine he would have done his best to ensure that it was as consistent as possible with what he had already published, or at least provided an explanation for the discrepancy as he did with the revised Riddle-game story. He is the sort of author who feels he owes that sort of thing to his readers. Even if he regretted something he wrote earlier, he would still feel obliged to be consistent with it. > > > by LOTR and Unfinished Tales. I can certainly visualize (in my mind's eye) > > > Tolkien re-writing the Hobbit so that it matches the more adult style of LOTR, > > > while telling the exact same story of the Quest of Erebor. > > > > I dislike the idea. What would be the point? Are people upset that the > > book makes fun of Gandalf or something? I guess Bilbo just wasn't as > > reverent toward him as were the later chroniclers. > > It isn't just the issue of reverance in attitude, but in the seriousness > of the material, and consistency with Tolkien's other writings. Have you noted any discrepancies with LOTR? Apart from that, The Hobbit should clearly take precedence over anything not published in Tolkien's lifetime. Still, I would be interested to hear any examples of discrepancies you have in mind. -- Lupus Australis ###### From: jeoppete@aol.com (Kingasaurus) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Elven hair colour was(Re: Aragorn Movie casting) Lines: 98 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 06 Aug 1999 07:06:51 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19990806030651.14800.00003303@ng-cj1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!205.252.116.205!howland.erols.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail ---I'm not sure I can give an answer because I'm not sure I agree with the question. I'm not sure what you mean by "canonical". Clearly, all of the accounts given in LOTR are intended to be translations of accounts that were written by hobbits. We may assume that they are all substantially accurate and wholly honest, but perhaps not entirely verbatim descriptions of dialogue. Some of the accounts are based on first-person experience, and others are based on research by these same hobbits interviewing the non-hobbit participants in the War of the Ring. The events in "The Hobbit" are supposed to be based on Bilbo's own writings, and this, in and of itself, is enough to explain certain deviations of style and attitude from the later books. The account of the riddle-game from the 1937 edition has been explained and incorporated into the ongoing story, even though it is now considered false. But this lie was, as is pointed out in LOTR, very uncharacteristic of Bilbo, and so there is no reason to assume that anything else in "The Hobbit" (or anything at all in the revised edition) is wrong or inaccurate. --- Tell that to certain people in the Newsgroups who believe that there are no blond-haired wood-Elves and the description of such in "The Hobbit" is some kind of mistake or oversight that Tolkien "corrected" in his later opinions on this subject. I'm agreeing with you. They aren't. > Is it safe to assume that the "stone giants" are one of Bilbo's fairy-tale > embellishments to his memoirs, ---It's just that what these "giants" actually were is uncertain, and subject to interpretation.--- Correct. > Where is that particular line in the > sand drawn? ---We don't need to draw a line. Tolkien has already done it for us.--- Oh, but we do. What conclusion should we draw when a statement in the Silmarillion contradicts a statement in the Hobbit? Any ideas? Many are inclined to give more credence to the later Silmarillion, because they are considered more fully-developed conclusions of Tolkien's ideas about his invented mythology. > Where does the blond Elven-King fit into this mess? --Clearly, he was blond. ---- I'm with you so far.... > Even though JRR > originally wrote the Hobbit distinct from his early Sil (and in a children's > style), he later was forced to "fit" the Hobbit into his universe, as is shown > by LOTR and Unfinished Tales. I can certainly visualize (in my mind's eye) > Tolkien re-writing the Hobbit so that it matches the more adult style of LOTR, > while telling the exact same story of the Quest of Erebor. ---I dislike the idea. What would be the point? Are people upset that the book makes fun of Gandalf or something? I guess Bilbo just wasn't as reverent toward him as were the later chroniclers.---- The whole style of the Hobbit is less reverent about EVERYTHING, simply becuse of the style in which JRR decided to write it. > So....which "fairy-tale"-sounding details would go, and which details > would stay, if he had ever - hypothetically - engaged in such a rewrite? ---He already engaged in a rewrite. What he chose to revise are already a matter of record. AFAIK, only the riddle-game was significantly revised, and even here the original account was "kept" in a certain sense, as a plot point in the ongoing story of the Ring.--- I know, but you seem to be missing my point. The fact that the Hobbit was not originally intended to be "attached" to the early Silmarillion mythology makes a difference in the choices Tolkien made when he wrote the Hobbit. The choices were much different when he wrote LOTR, which was clearly intended to be linked to the Sil from the moment he started it. I don't think it's controversial to state that because of this state of affairs, some inconsistencies have arisen between items in the Hobbit, and items in the Sil. The hair color of a certain Elven-King being one of them. > Sticky, indeed.... ---Not at all. It is all perfectly straight.---- Hang around a while. See how much argument you get in the newsgroup on a statement like that. :) " I know what fakery looks like" -James Randi ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Elven hair colour was(Re: Aragorn Movie casting) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 08:19:11 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 99 Message-ID: References: <19990806030651.14800.00003303@ng-cj1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: <19990806030651.14800.00003303@ng-cj1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On 6 Aug 1999, Kingasaurus wrote: > LOTR, very uncharacteristic of Bilbo, and so there is no reason to assume > that anything else in "The Hobbit" (or anything at all in the revised > edition) is wrong or inaccurate. --- > Tell that to certain people in the Newsgroups who believe that there are > no blond-haired wood-Elves and the description of such in "The Hobbit" > is some kind of mistake or oversight that Tolkien "corrected" in his > later opinions on this subject. This is just the sort of detail that I cannot see anyone getting worked up about. Surely the world is complex enough that there can be an exception to every rule, and surely the wood-elf king has enough magic at his disposal that he could change his hair-color if he so chose (whatever his motives). If Bilbo says the king was blond when he met him then why doubt? > I'm agreeing with you. They aren't. OK. > ---We don't need to draw a line. Tolkien has already done it for us.--- > > Oh, but we do. What conclusion should we draw when a statement in the > Silmarillion contradicts a statement in the Hobbit? Any ideas? The Hobbit takes precedence because it was actually completed and published in Tolkien's lifetime, whereas the Silmarillion was not. This assumes the "contradiction" cannot be resolved with a little imagination, which it usually can. > Many are > inclined to give more credence to the later Silmarillion, because they are > considered more fully-developed conclusions of Tolkien's ideas about his > invented mythology. I would give the reverse conclusion. I would call them less fully developed, because he never published them. Perhaps he felt publication was premature because he had not hammered out all the inconsistencies yet. If I were an author, that is how I would want my work to be judged. > The whole style of the Hobbit is less reverent about EVERYTHING, simply > becuse of the style in which JRR decided to write it. This irreverence is not insignificant, but it can only be carried so far. Perhaps Bilbo was being a bit flippant with language when he described the spirits encountered in the Misty Mountains as "giants", but he did not invent the encounter. Also, regardless of how irreverent Bilbo's attitude may have been towards the Wood-elf king, I'm sure he did not assign him the wrong hair color. Why would he? > ---He already engaged in a rewrite. What he chose to revise are already a > matter of record. AFAIK, only the riddle-game was significantly revised, > and even here the original account was "kept" in a certain sense, as a > plot point in the ongoing story of the Ring.--- > I know, but you seem to be missing my point. The fact that the Hobbit > was not originally intended to be "attached" to the early Silmarillion > mythology makes a difference in the choices Tolkien made when he wrote > the Hobbit. In spite of this, Tolkien took care to be faithful to the Hobbit when he wrote LOTR, which was written AFTER he decided to attach his Silmarillion writings (still unpublished) to the Hobbit. Tolkien evidently believes that when once you publish a work and release it to your audience, you have an obligation to be faithful to your audience and not contradict yourself. This is important if you want to maintain suspension of disbelief and have your readers take you seriously. All the evidence indicates that Tolkien understood this well. On those occasions where he did change his mind, he made sure that he had a damn good explanation and excuse to give his readers. > The choices were much different when he wrote LOTR, which > was clearly intended to be linked to the Sil from the moment he started > it. I don't think it's controversial to state that because of this state > of affairs, some inconsistencies have arisen between items in the > Hobbit, and items in the Sil. The hair color of a certain Elven-King > being one of them. I'm not sure if Tolkien was aware of this inconsistency. But if he was, he probably would have resolved it prior to publishing the Silmarillion. Since "The Hobbit" was already in print (and already in a revised and corrected edition), then I am sure any corrections would have been made to the Silmarillion, not The Hobbit. Alternatively, he might have found a reasonable explanation for the contradiction, which can easily be done. > > Sticky, indeed.... > > ---Not at all. It is all perfectly straight.---- > > Hang around a while. See how much argument you get in the newsgroup on a > statement like that. :) Sure :) ###### Message-ID: <37AAD7D9.DD2A1DA6@wizard.net> From: "James Kuyper Jr." Organization: Not Enough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.36 i686) X-Accept-Language: en-US,en-GB,de,es,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Elven hair colour was(Re: Aragorn Movie casting) References: <37A5BB91.BD9E4D7C@mediaone.net> <19990802122606.21543.00001385@ng-xd1.aol.com> <37AA5679.BB3063C2@wizard.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 71 NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.161.15.102 X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 933943034 206.161.15.102 (Fri, 06 Aug 1999 08:37:14 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 08:37:14 EDT Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 08:40:57 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hub1.ispnews.com!typ12.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail John Whelan wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, James Kuyper Jr. wrote: > > > John Whelan wrote: > > > > > > On 2 Aug 1999, Kingasaurus wrote: > > ... > > > > Where is that particular line in the > > > > sand drawn? > > > > > > We don't need to draw a line. Tolkien has already done it for us. > > > Everything in "The Hobbit" may be assumed to be honest and accurate, > > > except for the original 1937 account of the Riddle-Game, and any other > > > minor inaccuracies that were revised for the later edition. > > > > And where exactly do you put the rest of Tolkien's writings? When you > > get down to level of detail that is typical of this newsgroup, they > > contradict each other. > > What other writings are you referring to? Do you mean the ones he never > published? Do you mean the ones he never finished? Of course. Also the Letters - I don't know whether those were published in his lifetime. If you want to completely ignore the other works, then what you're doing is giving them a canonicity of 0. An odd decision, IMO, but your choice. > > The question of which source is to be preferred > > is far from trivial. > > The question may not be trivial, but neither is it difficult. Clearly, > the works that he actually finished and published are the ones that take > precedence. There are only two such books. They are The Hobbit and The > Lord of the Rings. There are a few other relevant criterion: later works are more cannonical than earlier ones. More detailed works are more cannonical than brief summaries. Works that are significantly inconsistent with other cannonical works are more cannonical than those which are not. Whether or not a work got published is not the only thing that should be considered. > > > > by LOTR and Unfinished Tales. I can certainly visualize (in my mind's eye) > > > > Tolkien re-writing the Hobbit so that it matches the more adult style of LOTR, > > > > while telling the exact same story of the Quest of Erebor. > > > > > > I dislike the idea. What would be the point? Are people upset that the > > > book makes fun of Gandalf or something? I guess Bilbo just wasn't as > > > reverent toward him as were the later chroniclers. > > > > It isn't just the issue of reverance in attitude, but in the seriousness > > of the material, and consistency with Tolkien's other writings. > > Have you noted any discrepancies with LOTR? Apart from that, The Hobbit > should clearly take precedence over anything not published in Tolkien's > lifetime. I disagree. When you consider the history of "The Hobbit", many of it's more childish features should be discounted as inconsistent with Tolkien's mythology, even though most of that mythology was never published in his lifetime. He had always intended to publish the Silmarillion; the fact that this didn't happen in his lifetime was merely an accident. TH was written as a children's book, originally with no strong ties to the mythology. When he wrote LoTR, it was originally intended as merely a sequel to TH, but eventually it developed a more serious air, and strong ties to his mythology. That required a number of revisions to TH, but Tolkien never made all the changes that would be required to eliminate the incompatibilities. ###### From: jeoppete@aol.com (Kingasaurus) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Elven hair colour was(Re: Aragorn Movie casting) Lines: 26 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 06 Aug 1999 16:17:55 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19990806121755.28732.00005414@ng-ci1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail > Many are > inclined to give more credence to the later Silmarillion, because they are > considered more fully-developed conclusions of Tolkien's ideas about his > invented mythology. ---I would give the reverse conclusion. I would call them less fully developed, because he never published them. Perhaps he felt publication was premature because he had not hammered out all the inconsistencies yet. If I were an author, that is how I would want my work to be judged.---- I agree with most of your post except this. The fact that Tolkien never published the Sil in his lifetime does not make it less relevant than the Hobbit when discussing his invented mythology. TH, after all, is about one small incident in the Third Age - the Quest of 13 Dwarves and one hobbit to take revenge on a dragon . The Sil is the ENTIRE HISTORY of the universe from the moment of creation to th ened of the Third Age. Are you absolutely convinced the Hobbit should take precedence because he managed to get it published while he was still alive? I'm not convinced of that at all. I would agree with the following: That the Silmarillion is definitely more developed in its conclusions about the mythology, however that is no excuse for the reader to simply pretend that the events and descriptions in the Hobbit didn't happen. As you have already said, a compromise would have to exist in the reader's mind to reslove or gloss over the inconsistencies in question. " I know what fakery looks like" -James Randi ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Elven hair colour was(Re: Aragorn Movie casting) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 17:56:59 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 201 Message-ID: References: <37A5BB91.BD9E4D7C@mediaone.net> <19990802122606.21543.00001385@ng-xd1.aol.com> <37AA5679.BB3063C2@wizard.net> <37AAD7D9.DD2A1DA6@wizard.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: <37AAD7D9.DD2A1DA6@wizard.net> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, James Kuyper Jr. wrote: > > What other writings are you referring to? Do you mean the ones he never > > published? Do you mean the ones he never finished? > > Of course. Also the Letters - I don't know whether those were published > in his lifetime. Neither do I. But in any event, such letters are going to be very casual documents at best. They can add to our understanding by presenting new knowledge or perhaps clarify the meaning of something that wasn't clear. But by no means should they actually take *precedence* over a finished work that has been written, rewritten and revised countless times, then proofread, edited, and revised again in preparation for final publishing. I have heard that in some of his letters Tolkien expresses some regret that he wrote the Hobbit in precisely the style that he did. This does not alter the fact that, despite any such regrets, Tolkien permitted The Hobbit to stand in more-or-less its original form. He made changes only when he could explain the contradiction in a manner that would satisfy the reader and not betray the suspension of disbelief. His loyalty to his readers took precedence over his changing preferences and second thoughts, and he insisted on remaining faithful to what he had written. I salute and respect him for it. As I have said before, Tolkien ain't no damned George Lucas. > If you want to completely ignore the other works, then > what you're doing is giving them a canonicity of 0. An odd decision, > IMO, but your choice. I never said I wanted to "completely ignore the other works". Nor am I accustomed to assigning numerical "canonicity" values to things. I'm not sure what you are talking about. Tolkien did his best to make his works consistent and to avoid *any* contradiction that would interfere with suspension of disbelief. In this respect, all his works...those that were completed...are equally "canon". Any resulting inconsistencies would be a regrettable and unintentional error on Tolkien's part. We cannot necessarily assume that he would resolve it in favor of a later work...unless the later work were not yet published. In the later case, it is clearly the unpublished work that would end up being corrected were an inconsistency to be called to his attention. It is far more difficult, and far more disloyal and rude to your readers, to correct a published work than an unpublished manuscript. > > > The question of which source is to be preferred > > > is far from trivial. > > > > The question may not be trivial, but neither is it difficult. Clearly, > > the works that he actually finished and published are the ones that take > > precedence. There are only two such books. They are The Hobbit and The > > Lord of the Rings. > > There are a few other relevant criterion: later works are more > cannonical than earlier ones. Says who? I'm not sure where you are getting these rules from. Is it from Star Wars? Your rule is based on a single, dubious assumption: that an author has the right to change his mind and ignore what he wrote previously, and yet have his audience continue to swallow his bullshit. That's George Lucas's rule, not Tolkien's. As far as I am concerned, a reader does *not* have to accept a later work as more "canonical" unless he likes the later work better. A good author will do his best to keep his works consistent, and not force his reader to choose. Tolkien is a good author. Of course, he is not a perfect author. I'm sure that mistakes and inconsitencies will creep in unintentionally. But in case of such errors (for errors they are) it makes as much sense to assign the mistake to the latter work than to the former. Indeed it usually makes far more sense. Why? Because Tolkien did not know about "LOTR" when he wrote "The Hobbit", but he did know about "The Hobbit" when he wrote LOTR. Thus, if LOTR is inconsistent with "The Hobbit" this is the result of a mistake made when writing LOTR, not The Hobbit. If I put myself in Tolkien's shoes and imagine that I have just published a sequel to a popular book of mine. Soon letters start pouring in from fans, and one of them points out a mistake that is not consitent with the original work. I slap my head with my hand and say "Damn, why didn't I notice that!" A year later, my publisher gives me a chance to revise and republish both novels. I think I, as an author, would be more inclined to correct the later work in favor of the former. That would seem more loyal to my readers, especially since the original work has been in print far longer. But as far as an unpublished work goes, there is absolutely no contest. The published work would take precedence, hands down, in the case of any contradiction. I suppose this rule could be used fairly to assess the relative value of various unpublished materials. It should never allow such materials to take precedence over a finished published work. This is because, in the mind of a good author, the "right to change one's mind" ends when your book reaches the public. > More detailed works are more cannonical > than brief summaries. I agree that greater detail implies greater knowledge which implies greater accuracy. I also agree that brief summaries can be misleading without being actually false. But such things must be judged on an individual basis. I'm not sure how any of this applies to the Hobbit, since no-one has yet given me any reasonable examples of inaccuracies in the Hobbit that must be considered superceded. In any event, such considerations should not allow an unfinished unpublished work to take precedent over a finished published one. > Works that are significantly inconsistent with > other cannonical works are more cannonical than those which are not. Now you're talking gobbledygook. I'm not sure I should try to respond until you give me examples of how this dubious statement applies to the works of Tolkien. Of course, you can apply this dubious mind-twister of a rule only by assigning Levels of Canonicity to various works, something that Tolkien never did, and which I doubt he would have approved of. > Whether or not a work got published is not the only thing that should be > considered. It is the first thing that must be considered. A published, finished work is always "more canon" (to use your phrase) than an unpublished, unfinished one. Once this is accepted, then I suppose you can apply your other rules to determine the relative value (to eachother) of the remaining unpublished material. > > > > > by LOTR and Unfinished Tales. I can certainly visualize (in my mind's eye) > > > > > Tolkien re-writing the Hobbit so that it matches the more adult style of LOTR, > > > > > while telling the exact same story of the Quest of Erebor. > > > > > > > > I dislike the idea. What would be the point? Are people upset that the > > > > book makes fun of Gandalf or something? I guess Bilbo just wasn't as > > > > reverent toward him as were the later chroniclers. > > > > > > It isn't just the issue of reverance in attitude, but in the seriousness > > > of the material, and consistency with Tolkien's other writings. > > > > Have you noted any discrepancies with LOTR? Apart from that, The Hobbit > > should clearly take precedence over anything not published in Tolkien's > > lifetime. > > I disagree. When you consider the history of "The Hobbit", many of it's > more childish features should be discounted as inconsistent with > Tolkien's mythology, Such as.....? (tap, tap, tap, tap) > even though most of that mythology was never > published in his lifetime. He had always intended to publish the > Silmarillion; Unfortunately, he did not. This fact may be unfortunate, but that does not mean it can be ignored. And I'm still waiting for someone to give me a list of these alleged inconsistencies. > the fact that this didn't happen in his lifetime was > merely an accident. It was an accident with consequences. The consequence is that Silmarillion was never finished. One consequence (which you do not seem to recognize as likely) was that Tolkien never got the opportunity to hammer out these inconsistencies so that Silmarillion would be entirely compatible with The Hobbit. > TH was written as a children's book, originally with no strong ties to > the mythology. When he wrote LoTR, it was originally intended as merely > a sequel to TH, but eventually it developed a more serious air, and > strong ties to his mythology. That required a number of revisions to TH, > but Tolkien never made all the changes that would be required to > eliminate the incompatibilities. Actually, Tolkien made far more revisions to his Mythology on account of The Hobbit, once he had decided that they were part of the same universe. This is because he was already committed to the Hobbit (having already published it). But the Silmarillion was still safely in his desk drawer and could be messed with as much as he chose. His revisions to The Hobbit (that I am aware) are not really revisions at all -- at least not in the sense that they contradict the old. Rather, they are additions. He did not discard the original version of the finding of the Ring. It remains part of the story. The new, correct, version of the story has more of the character of a relevation/plot twist. It is not a George-Lucas style switcharound. Tolkien remained faithful to "The Hobbit" while he lived. I think it only reasonable to assume he would have continued to do so. Any inconsistencies with The Hobbit that are in the Silmarillion should be considered the mistakes of an unfinished work. And of course I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what these alleged inconsistencies are. -- John Whelan ###### From: John Whelan Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Elven hair colour was(Re: Aragorn Movie casting) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 18:24:31 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 66 Message-ID: References: <19990806121755.28732.00005414@ng-ci1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: amanda.dorsai.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: jbwhelan@amanda In-Reply-To: <19990806121755.28732.00005414@ng-ci1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.cwix.com!165.113.238.17!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!amanda!jbwhelan On 6 Aug 1999, Kingasaurus wrote: > > Many are > > inclined to give more credence to the later Silmarillion, because they are > > considered more fully-developed conclusions of Tolkien's ideas about his > > invented mythology. > > ---I would give the reverse conclusion. I would call them less fully > developed, because he never published them. Perhaps he felt publication > was premature because he had not hammered out all the inconsistencies yet. > If I were an author, that is how I would want my work to be judged.---- > I agree with most of your post except this. The fact that Tolkien never > published the Sil in his lifetime does not make it less relevant than > the Hobbit when discussing his invented mythology. Your phrasing is a bit loaded. Since Silmarillion is all about Tolkien's "invented Mythology", and The Hobbit is only peripherally concerned with that subject, it would be a bit strange of me to argue that The Hobbit is more relevant *to* the invented Mythology. I can paraphrase your own argument and turn it back on you: "The fact that Tolkien published The Hobbit earlier does not make it less relevant than the Sil when discussing the Quest for Erebor." But I was not saying that it was more relevant to his Mythology. I was saying that it is a finished work. Therefore, to the extent that they contradict (and I'm not sure they do at all), "The Hobbit" takes precedence. However, they should rarely contradict, since they are about different things. > TH, after all, is > about one small incident in the Third Age - the Quest of 13 Dwarves and > one hobbit to take revenge on a dragon. The Sil is the ENTIRE HISTORY > of the universe from the moment of creation to th ened of the Third Age. Right. They are about different things. That is why contradiction should not be a problem. I believe it was in Tolkien's power to make them compatible, and I believe that was his intention. > Are you absolutely convinced the Hobbit should take precedence because > he managed to get it published while he was still alive? That is my position. I believe that authors should be loyal to their readers and faithful to what they have already published. I have excellent reason to believe that was Tolkien's position as well. I believe he intended to do this with Silmarillion. Since the Silmarillion was never finished, you certainly cannot know that these inconsistencies were not mistakes that would have been corrected in a final edition. I am talking hypothetically, of course, since I am not aware of any such mistakes. I am only aware of the issue of the Elven King's hair-color, an incredibly minor point, and a poor excuse for discounting what Bilbo saw with his own eyes. > I'm not > convinced of that at all. I would agree with the following: That the > Silmarillion is definitely more developed in its conclusions about the > mythology, however that is no excuse for the reader to simply pretend > that the events and descriptions in the Hobbit didn't happen. As you > have already said, a compromise would have to exist in the reader's mind > to reslove or gloss over the inconsistencies in question. I'm not sure if we are truly in disagreement at all. ###### Message-ID: <37B06097.C6D06A9C@mediaone.net> From: Cian X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-MOENE (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Elven hair colour was(Re: Aragorn Movie casting) References: <19990806121755.28732.00005414@ng-ci1.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 48 Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 13:25:43 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.128.99.214 X-Complaints-To: abuse@mediaone.net X-Trace: ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net 934306291 24.128.99.214 (Tue, 10 Aug 1999 13:31:31 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 13:31:31 EDT Organization: Road Runner Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!netnews.com!chnws02.mediaone.net!24.128.1.101!chnws05.ne.mediaone.net!24.128.60.9!ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net.POSTED!not-for-mail John Whelan wrote: > Since the Silmarillion was never finished, you certainly cannot know that > these inconsistencies were not mistakes that would have been corrected in a > final edition. I am > talking hypothetically, of course, since I am not aware of any such mistakes. I > am only aware of the issue of the Elven King's hair-color, an incredibly minor > point, and a poor excuse for discounting what Bilbo saw with his own eyes. An incredibly minor point? Heck, no such thing here. And I never discount Bilbo; my earlier post last week did contain the phrase: "If Thranduil is a blond Sindarin king then so be it ..." included to show that I accept the description despite the little speculation that followed -- Anyway, it's no secret we are asked to do a little in-story 'dancing' to smooth some elements within the H with LOTR's. This 'smoothing' doesn't bother me, in fact I think it lends to the inner reality and belief that each work is a unique translation -- but out in the real world, it's a dance just the same; I mean, to admit we know the 'real' reason behind the reason that Bilbo lied about the 'ring finding' incident is not to discount anything that Tolkien wrote I think. You say Tolkien had an obligation to the H when writing LOTR's and I agree, and why else the imaginative explanations to smooth the two. With respect to the small detail of a blond Sindarin king vrs appendix F it's simply not as smooth as it could be IMO, but seeming exceptions to 'rules' will surface in any event -see Cirdan- > also typed: That the Silmarillion is definitely more developed in > its conclusions about the mythology, however that is no excuse for the reader to > simply pretend that the events and descriptions in the Hobbit didn't happen.<< [see above] then allow me to re-word my earlier post, so it fits better with what I'm (trying) to splutter out, and hopefully worded this way, will reveal that I am not some stubborn lunatic crossing out the word 'golden' in all of my Hobbit editions. I am altogether a different kind of lunatic! Had Tolkien written the Hobbit -after- LOTR's I -believe- he would have chosen dark or silver hair for Thranduil, given what I read in Appendix F and elsewhere. Yes, a rather huge and impossible 'what if' -- but the point was rather innocuous to begin with in the face of proving Legolas as blond or dark-haired, which was the only reason I piped up in the first place. PS. I still believe Legolas has dark hair, and I noted another 'believer' here last night. heh, heh [:-)] Cian