NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/fan/tolkien/2045

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!warwick!uknet!str-ccsun!dct.ac.uk!mcspikta
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Subcreation (was Re: Hobbits)
Summary: re: Subcreation
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:42:28 GMT
References: <samw.727253780@bucket> <[e-mail]>  <[e-mail]>
Organization: Dundee Institute of Technology
Lines: 57

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael P. Colburn) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>
> [e-mail] (James Alexander Chokey) writes:
>
>> The desire to have all of Tolkien's works
>> fit easily into one grand meta-narrative, IMHO, obscures for many readers
>> the fact that real differences that do exist between his works.  I'm not
>> trying to deny that Tolkien's works in many ways connected.  I'm just trying
>> to historicize the nature of that connection, to show why there are differences
>> between these works and why it is silly to try and seek to "resolve" these
>> differences.
>>
>>     --  Jim C. <[e-mail]>
>
> I don't think there are many in this newsgroup who've read JRRT's works
> thoroughly who'll contest the fact that the four works you speak of
> (the Hobbit, LotR, the Silmarillion and The Adventures of TB) were
> created, for the most part, separately...you've presented your views
> clearly and concisely.  The thing that irritates me is your attitude
> that it is "silly" to seek resolution in the differences between his
> works.  Yes, I agree it is simply fan.fiction, but before JRRT died, he
> expressed the desire to make the works cohesive (although he himself
> had serious doubts that this would be possible).  Since he is dead,
> we'll never know what types of resolutions he'd have made.  Perhaps he
> would have found an explaination for Tom.  Perhaps he would explained
> why hobbits seem to be excluded in the Silmarillion (actually, since he
> died before it's publication, he might have included them...who
> knows?!?)  My point is, why is it silly for his devoted fans to discuss
> possible resolutions?  I can't believe that you could have read his
> works and not been 'mentally' transported to the worlds he is seem to
> create within our own minds...and then not engage in speculation as to
> the answers to riddles that are not given (especially when the author
> gave us reason to believe there *might* have been answers had he
> lived).  Jim, you seem to be a very intelligent fellow and I've enjoyed
> many of your articles and found them all to be informative.  Why can
> you just loosen up and 'dream' a little? ;-)
>
> Mike Colburn                         =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Dartmouth-Hitchcock                  "Pulu-see-ba-goomba" -- Gilligan
> Medical Center                       =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Lebanon, New Hampshire  03756        :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)

On this subject Tolkien himself provided the following comments in a letter
written to Christopher Bretherton in July 1964:-

    "I returned to Oxford in Jan. 1926, and by the time The Hobbit appeared
(1937) this matter of the Elder Days was in coherent form. The Hobbit was not
intended to have anything to do with it. It had on necessary connection with
the mythology but naturally became attracted towards this dominant construction
in my mind, causing the tale to become larger and more heroic as it proceeded.
   Even so it could really stand quite apart, except for the references to the
Fall of Gondolin, the branches of the Elfkin, and the quarrel of King Thingol,
Luthiens father, with the dwarves.

Kenny Armstrong
Dundee Institute of Technology
Dundee (Where Else)