From: microsoc@oxford.ac.uk (Andrew D McMurry=)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Hobbits (was Re: Bombadil)
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:00:21 GMT
	<1993Jan9.015633.29564@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<1993Jan9.184446.21908@mcs.kent.edu>
	<1993Jan10.213505.8604@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: /u3/microsoc/users/amcm/.organization
In-reply-to: jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU's message of 10 Jan 93 21:35:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.213505.8604@leland.Stanford.EDU> jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey) writes:

	   Basically, when Tolkien started writing LOTR (which was originally
   going to be just another children's book like the Hobbit) he set the sequel in
   the same textual world as the Hobbit, a world in which a character as odd as
   Bombadil _would_ not seem anomalous or out of place.  During the process of 
   writing the first half of FotR, however, he found himself drifting more and
   more into the "world" of the Silmarillion, a world in which creatures like
   Bombadil, Trolls, (and even hobbits, I would contend) don't really fit.  Still,
   the fact of the matter was that LOTR was supposed to be a Hobbit sequel, and he
   could not shift utterly and completely into the textual world of the 
   Silmarillion. Consequently, LOTR is set in a textual world that is a mixture 
   of both the Silmarillion world and the Hobbit world and attempts to synthesize
   them.  Tolkien's attempt at synthesis of these two very different textual 
   "worlds" is remarkably sucessful, IMHO, but inevitably results in the
   creation of tensions within LOTR between the two different "worlds."  For
   the most part, these tensions are fairly subdued as long as one does not 
   step too far outside of LOTR.  It is only when one starts reading LOTR 
   and the Hobbit or LOTR and the Silmarillion (or all three of them together)
   with the expectation that they should all take place in the same textual world
   that these tensions become noticeable and produce anomalies like Beorn, 
   Bombadil, etc.

	   --  Jim C. <jchokey@leland.stanford.edu>

There are tensions as you describe just in the Hobbit without reading anything
else. For instance, when Bilbo parts from the Dwarves, they invite him to
return sometime, and promise a great feast when he does. Bilbo remarks that
they are all welcome to visit him in the Shire and that Tea is at 5 O'Clock
but they can come round anytime they wish.

This strikes me as intentional tension between the world of Bilbo and of
the Dwarves. That of Bilbo is supposed to be familiar to the reader, so that
the reader can feel involved in the story. Bilbo is an interface between the
reader and the world of Middle Earth. In LoTR the Hobbits again take this role
of an interface. The Silmarillion does not have such an interface which makes
it a much more difficult book to read for many people.
For a more detailed argument along the same line, see The Road to Middle Earth
by Tom Shippey.

While I see the reasons why Tolkien put various characters, places and things
in his stories, are to do with making a good story, I do not see any thing
wrong with trying to explain them in Middle Earth terms, rather than in
Textual terms. One of the great things about Middle Earth is that Tolkien
tried to fit everything together, and give reasons and histories for as much
as possible. Most fantasy authors put creatures in their stories without much
pretense that they are there for anything but textual reasons. The fact that
Tolkien tried to make Middle Earth consistent implies that everything in Middle
Earth has a reason for existance and for being where it is and doing what it,
even if Tolkien didn't think of it or write it down. I cannot see anything
wrong with discussion or argument about what these explanations might be.
You can't stop discussions like the one about Bombadil while letting the
'bestiality' story get through.

	Andrew McMurry
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien