# What constitutes the "Legendarium"?



## Ent (Jul 11, 2022)

This Enting, being new, would like your input please.
I have seen a definition in one place that equates "The Legendarium" with "HoME".

In your mind, what constitutes the "_Legendarium_"?
Is it just the twelve volumes of HoME? 
Is it more? 
Is it less?

And I see some may consider Hostetter's upcoming works to potentially be considered "13th and 14th book" contenders for "HoME". 
Yes?
No?
If not, could they become part of "The Legendarium" but not "HoME"?

I know this is likely to be speculative - perhaps as much or more so than what is "The Canon". But I thought I'd toss it out there.

If too much strife ensues over this, it will definitely be my last post of its kind..!! 😶


----------



## Radaghast (Jul 11, 2022)

Definitely those works that are considered canonical are in the legendarium:

_The Hobbit_
_The Lord of the Rings_
_Unfinished Tales_
_The Silmarillion_
_The Children of Húrin_
_HoME_, _Beren and Lúthien_ and _The Fall of Gondolin_ are really sort of more _about_ the legendarium, I think, than part of it. They all contain drafts, notes and letters but nothing that is considered canon.


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 11, 2022)

The "legendarium plain and simple is the writings of JRR Tolkien regarding Middle-earth. Nothing else can be part of it. The work done by Christopher and others cannot actually be part of the Legendarium but are vital in allowing us to read much of what we would otherwise have missed. The books already published by Christopher and those by Hostetter can be seen as "Secondary Cannon" in that they are illuminating the writings and possibly bridging gaps to make them readable. However, both of these and others are, working With the Legendarium to allow us access, a most important task for us all.


----------



## Ent (Jul 11, 2022)

Gothmog said:


> The "legendarium plain and simple is the writings of JRR Tolkien regarding Middle-earth. Nothing else can be part of it. The work done by Christopher and others cannot actually be part of the Legendarium but are vital in allowing us to read much of what we would otherwise have missed. The books already published by Christopher and those by Hostetter can be seen as "Secondary Cannon" in that they are illuminating the writings and possibly bridging gaps to make them readable. However, both of these and others are, working With the Legendarium to allow us access, a most important task for us all.



Then you would consider the Legendarium to be H and LOTR?
Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales also excluded, as these too were completed/edited by Christopher?

So Legendarium = Canon rather than Legendarium = HoME.


----------



## Ent (Jul 11, 2022)

Radaghast said:


> Definitely those works that are considered canonical are in the legendarium:
> 
> _The Hobbit_
> _The Lord of the Rings_
> ...



Thank you for this Radaghast.

And where do we fit books such as Hammond and Scull, "Readers Guide" and "Complete Companion", as well as Taylor's "Companion" and such. They are "books about", yes? 

And lastly, "Letters of Tolkien" too isn't Legendarium, but fits into "books about," since what he wrote in the Letters didn't always end up being the published final thoughts...though is very illuminating.


----------



## Ent (Jul 11, 2022)

At last I think I'm getting a handle on this - what has at least for me been a "labyrinthine" - understanding and grasp of what is and is not Canon and where it fits in most people's thinking.

At the end of the day, it seems to me there are only maybe 2 or 3 books that could be argued over with regard to being "Canon" vs. "About the Canon".

I confess the term "Secondary Canon" presented by friend Gothmog was new to me... and I think for the most part, I shall ignore it in favor of "Canon", "About the Canon", and then outright FanFic.

Simplilfies for the Well-aged part of the Enting.

(Which is not to say "Secondary Canon" isn't descriptive and applicable. It's just my search for a more simplistic categorization, as I can see some argument could be brewed over what is really "Secondary Canon" vs. "About the Canon" as well.)

Thanks again for all your help everyone.


----------



## Radaghast (Jul 11, 2022)

Well-aged Enting said:


> Thank you for this Radaghast.
> 
> And where do we fit books such as Hammond and Scull, "Readers Guide" and "Complete Companion", as well as Taylor's "Companion" and such. They are "books about", yes?
> 
> And lastly, "Letters of Tolkien" too isn't Legendarium, but fits into "books about," since what he wrote in the Letters didn't always end up being the published final thoughts...though is very illuminating.


Yes, they are about the legendarium. _Letters_, of course, discusses more than Middle-earth.


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 11, 2022)

Well-aged Enting said:


> Then you would consider the Legendarium to be H and LOTR?
> Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales also excluded, as these too were completed/edited by Christopher?
> 
> So Legendarium = Canon rather than Legendarium = HoME.


The Legendarium is included throughout The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, All of HoME the Hobbit and LotR and more. Any of JRRT's writings about Middle-earth are the Legendarium. HoME is a Listing of as much of the Legendarium as Christopher was able to do.
The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings are Canon. They were made ready for publishing by JRRT and published during his life. They were also, to some extent, altered after first printing.
The Silmarillion and the other books such as "The Children of Hurin" are "Secondary Canon" as they were not published during JRRT's life and not made ready for publishing by him. Though they are made directly from his notes by the person who knew JRRT and the stories best. They are the "History of Middle-earth" and much like the History of Real(ish) Earth that History is Confusing and Contradictory. We have to look carefully to see which parts fit best.


----------



## Olorgando (Jul 11, 2022)

If you think JRRT's Legendarium, as detailed in The Sil, UT, HoMe, HoTH, and NoMe is confusing ...

I have a hugely enjoyable book (685-page paperback from 2011) by Stephen Clarke, "1000 years of annoying the French".
Well, it's not quite 1000 years, as it picks up with the 1066 Norman invasion ... (something of importance to JRRT).
Clarke has worked for French companies, lived in France, is bilingual (his homepage certainly is) and certainly has sympathies for the French.
But it may be in his book that I read the comment that (I paraphrase) "If you compare the history books used in French and English schools (and to a degree universities) for the period from 1066, you get the impression they are talking about two different planets."


----------



## Elthir (Jul 19, 2022)

I probably use _Legendarium_ most often to refer to a fictive collection of texts in the possession of the Translator. Or, the "found" texts, not all of which have necessarily been translated.

Thus, for me, the Legendarium certainly includes the canonical texts that have been translated and published by the translator (Tolkien) for a once-and-future readership: _The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, the Road Goes Ever On,_ and the map part of Pauline Baynes Poster Map (illustrations aside).

But the fictive Legendarium is, in my opinion, surely larger, and would include works such as _Quenta Silmarillion, The Akallabeth, The Drowning of Anadune, The Awakening of the Quendi_, (something like) _Quendi and Eldar_,_ The Death of Amros_ (as no one calls it), and other stuff . . .

. . . and while these works are not canon for me, I adopt what does not "step on" canon (at least in my opinion), and imagine them as part of my/a fictive Legendarium.

*Or something like that *


----------



## Ent (Jul 19, 2022)

Thank you one and all for your thoughtful replies to this thread.
I am quite satisfied with the level of confusion remaining, after all the comments received.
My initial suspicion seems to be correct - "definitions can differ person to person, based on "criteria" - which can also differ person to person."

Generalized categories can be drawn. (I have defined 4 for myself). Some works may be found in more than one category, depending on the perspective it is viewed from. 

*Or something like that 😁*

There we have it.


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 19, 2022)

Radaghast said:


> Definitely those works that are considered canonical are in the legendarium:
> 
> _The Hobbit_
> _The Lord of the Rings_
> ...


I agree with this. I think that it is extremely unfair to discount these works from the legendarium of Tolkien. I would think however, that also HoME would be considered part of the legendarium, but perhaps I am wrong on this.


----------



## Ent (Jul 19, 2022)

Elbereth Vala Varda said:


> I agree with this. I think that it is extremely unfair to discount these works from the legendarium of Tolkien. I would think however, that also HoME would be considered part of the legendarium, but perhaps I am wrong on this.



I'm uncertain if there is a 'right and/or wrong' in this. Seems to be 'in the eye of the beholder'.


----------



## Ent (Jul 19, 2022)

OK so I gotta say it.
From my researches so far, I have built these 4 categories to stuff "books and things" into.

1. The Canon - a pretty narrow set of books directly authored and corrected by J.R.R. Tolkien himself. Also part of the "Legendarium". The Canon is mostly (but not entirely) consistent within itself.
2. The "Secondary Canon", so-called by some few people... or "The Secondary Legendarium" - works from Tolkien's pen collated and presented by Christopher, and POSSIBLY soon that other fellow who is working on stuff. (His name escapes me at the moment.) These works are checked against the Canon, and are not entirely consistent within it, and within themselves. 
3. Works ABOUT the "Legendarium and Secondary Legendarium". These works present 'stuff' about these, are interesting, and are to be checked against the source materials carefully before accepting what they say 'at face value'. Many books fit into this category.
4. FanFic - stuff that is worked up without a real regard for anything other than a fair 'similarity' to the Canon, Secondary Canon, and Works About. This category is deceptive, includes a great many works, and can be misleading to any newer Tolkienites (Ringers, Hobbits in all but size, or other names used.)

Categories 1-3 above seek a fidelity to the original works, and enjoy discussing the differences for ideas and opinions.

Category 4 above - well - is a bit of an animal all of its own.

This is why adherents to categories 1-3 and adherents to category 4 often find dissension and discord among themselves.

There is a group - probably much larger than we suspect it to be - that freely moves between and among 1-3, and 4, without a problem. But what we HEAR mostly, is word from those who are NOT flexible and fluid in their views and movements, but are among those who 'insist on being right'... the great bane of humankind.


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 19, 2022)

Well-aged Enting said:


> OK so I gotta say it.
> From my researches so far, I have built these 4 categories to stuff "books and things" into.
> 
> 1. The Canon - a pretty narrow set of books directly authored and corrected by J.R.R. Tolkien himself. Also part of the "Legendarium". The Canon is mostly (but not entirely) consistent within itself.
> ...


I agree with almost everything in this post. My only point of disagreement is the use of "The Secondary Legendarium" The "Secondary Canon" is what is collated and presented by Christopher and possibly others directly from the Legendarium of JRRT. The Legendarium is JRRT's writings plain and simple (my view). My use of the term "Secondary Canon" is to note the difference between the "finished" stories published by JRRT and those that were prepared for publication by others from the writings of left by JRRT. We can check these against the writings we have access to and judge for ourselves on the accuracy of them and how well they fit to the Canon.

I am happy to accept the books published by Christopher as being as close as we will get to what his father would have published.


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 19, 2022)

Well-aged Enting said:


> I'm uncertain if there is a 'right and/or wrong' in this. Seems to be 'in the eye of the beholder'.


You are probably right indeed. So many things seem to be this way within Tolkien's incredible works.


----------



## Annatar (Jul 24, 2022)

"Legendarium", "canonical".... These are terms, with which I can honestly do nothing at all with Tolkien's works.

What is important in the first place is what (J.R.R.) Tolkien himself has written. No matter if this is in the Hobbit, in the History or in any of his letters.

At the same time, it is equally important to understand that he was constantly revising and rethinking his works, even after they were published. And it was not uncommon for him to return to a more original version after several changes of mind. Christopher illustrates all this quite well in the works published after J.R.R.'s death .

So for me it rather results in a multidimensional universe with different parallel time strands or possibilities, one of which may be more probable than the other. 
The idea that certain things are called canon because they were published at some point doesn't really make sense to me. If you look at the first published versions of The Hobbit and compare them to the versions after The Lord of the Rings, for example, a lot of things were rewritten there because of The One Ring. And Tolkien used a pretty good literary trick to explain that.

Another good example of this is the question of the origin of the orcs. In Tolkien's later reflections, they were probably not bred from Elves, unlike what is described in the Silmarillion. If one were to accept this later possibility, however, many passages from earlier writings that had found their way into the Silmarillion would have to be rewritten, which never happened. It is therefore a dilemma that leads to the fact that with certain topics no version is completely correct or wrong, since that would have to result in each case in too many adjustments with dependent, other passages. First of all, Tolkien's lifetime was not enough for that, and secondly, he was too indecisive about certain things to make a final decision. I don't even want to discuss it here (I'm sure there are separate threads for that), but everyone can imagine what huge historical consequences it would have in the Silmarillion and elsewhere if the original orcs had now been bred out of humans instead of perverted elves. And yet, in the end, Tolkien seems to have been very unhappy with the idea that it was the Elves.

I would have to reread "Leaf by Niggle", but I remember that this dilemma is presented quite well there.

In addition, as already indicated, there is the literary trick that these are translations and interpretations of the Red Book, which somehow got into Tolkien's hands and which he was able to translate for some reason.

He also wrote, I believe, at some point (perhaps in a letter) that he later wished he had written The Hobbit more for adults and less for children.
One must therefore also ask oneself what from the Hobbit, for example, really represents an adequate translation of Bilbo's remarks from the Red Book, and what was rather an interpretation, rewriting, exaggeration or parody on the part of the translator Tolkien, in order to tell the story in a rather funny and child-friendly way.
So you don't really know what you can take literally in the Hobbit, what Bilbo really wrote (and revised again) and what Tolkien made of it (and what Bilbo actually experienced).

That's why I think Tolkien's idea of the Red Book somehow getting into his hands is really brilliant, because it allows for different interpretations and possibilities.

Now, some may legitimately wonder why I place such a high value on faithfulness to the work in film adaptations such as Rings of Power or other adaptations, if everything is apparently relative anyway...
But in the essentials it is not. In all the different versions of Tolkien the same spirit always comes through, there are only differences in the details, which can have sometimes more and sometimes less impact on the rest. (Moreover, for the Second Age we do not have "real" novels, but mythological treatises, short stories, historical narratives and epics).

The examples given above (the One Ring in the Hobbit and the origin of the Orcs) have, of course, rather larger implications for inner-world history, but it doesn't change the essence. Either way, it reflects Tolkien's soul. So it's more of an intuitive thing. You can argue about whether anything should be green or blue because it was written this way or that way or not at all, but in the end what matters is whether the deeper spirit has been captured or whether it's a Trojan horse for other things. (And that's where the alarm bells are currently ringing very loud.)

In this respect, for example, I would not necessarily find a non-literal film version of the Hobbit bad, if it were aimed more at an adult audience and showed more realistic characters - although I also like the book very, very much as it is: precisely because it also transports 100% of Tolkien's spirit or essence, whatever you want to call it, in this way, of course). 

Unfortunately, PJ's Hobbit version only partially succeeded in doing that. What I found successful were all the parts that corresponded to Tolkien's spirit, although they were more realistic and adult and less comedy-like than in the original book, and thus closer to the tone of the Lord of the Rings books. And that would be, for example, such banal things that the dwarves on their journey to the East also had a few weapons with them from the beginning, etc.. I wish the film version had been more consistent in terms of seriousness and realism. (Unfortunately, it became childish or embarrassing in other places, such as the many video game scenes, but that should not be discussed here). 

So if a Hobbit adaptation is made, then please either completely in the same style as in the book, or completely in the serious, realistic and epic style, as befits the tone in which the whole thing is literarily embedded. Of course, a smooth transition would also be conceivable or all the better, but it was unfortunately not evident in the trilogy.

You just have to realize that especially the beginning of The Hobbit was written rather funny and for younger people, and that you can't necessarily take every detail completely literally if you want to take the plot into a realistic Middle-earth as it is described in The Lord of the Rings or The Silmarillion. Because originally the Hobbit and the Silmarillion were decoupled, and only the Lord of the Rings built the bridge - after many revised and comparatively strange original versions, as far as the beginning of the LotR is concerned.

Now that was pretty detailed in terms of The Hobbit (and some film adaptations), but I hope I was able to illustrate the basic issues well with this example.


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 25, 2022)

Annatar said:


> "Legendarium", "canonical".... These are terms, with which I can honestly do nothing at all with Tolkien's works.
> 
> What is important in the first place is what (J.R.R.) Tolkien himself has written. No matter if this is in the Hobbit, in the History or in any of his letters.


So true. What J.R.R. Tolkien has written comes foremost in the legendarium of his works.


----------



## Elthir (Jul 25, 2022)

Annatar said:


> At the same time, it is equally important to understand that he was constantly revising and rethinking his works, even after they were published.



And generally speaking, he was revising and rethinking with the overall mindset of being consistent with already published work, as any author would naturally do.



Annatar said:


> The idea that certain things are called canon because they were published at some point doesn't really make sense to me. If you look at the first published versions of The Hobbit (edit for brevity) And Tolkien used a pretty good literary trick to explain that.



Ah, but why would Tolkien feel the need to invent this "literary trick" as you call it? I'd say in order to maintain internal consistency within the published corpus -- allowing readers a way to accept that both versions are "internal" (within the Secondary World), that is, both versions appear among the fictive Translator's material.

But you don't need to do this with revisions made to draft text, because from JRRT's perspective, it isn't part of Middle-earth in the minds of his once-and-future Readership.



Annatar said:


> Another good example of this is the question of the origin of the orcs.



This is a very different example in its essential nature however, as here one is dealing with draft texts and ideas. As Chistopher Tolkien notes (here with respect to Galadriel) . . .

*" . . . that after her entry into the stories of the First Age her actions could still be transformed radically, since the Silmarillion had not been published."*

To my mind, this is basically a partial description of canon. Tolkien must mind what is published; all else can be revised, even *radically* so, without (possibly) undermining the Secondary World.



Annatar said:


> ( . . . ) It is therefore a dilemma that leads to the fact that with certain topics no version is completely correct or wrong, since that would have to result in each case in too many adjustments with dependent, other passages.



Ad yet if Tolkien had _published_ his Silmarillion, with a definitive version of the origin of the Orcs, would it be correct when compared to variant, posthumously published ideas?

For example, when someone asks who Aragorn is, do we see threads that include the equal possibility that Aragorn was a Hobbit named Trotter?



Annatar said:


> I don't even want to discuss it here (I'm sure there are separate threads for that), but everyone can imagine what huge historical consequences it would have in the Silmarillion and elsewhere if the original orcs had now been bred out of humans instead of perverted elves.



In any case, Tolkien had not published a definitive origin of orcs -- he wrote (for instance, in the words of Treebeard), that Orcs were made in mockery of Elves (which does not mean made "from" Elves), and that they came in the "Great Darkness" . . . and that (Appendix F here) they were first bred by the "Dark Power" of the North in the Elder Days.



Annatar said:


> ( . . . ) One must therefore also ask oneself what from the Hobbit, for example, really represents an adequate translation of Bilbo's remarks from the Red Book, and what was rather an interpretation, rewriting, exaggeration or parody on the part of the translator Tolkien, in order to tell the story in a rather funny and child-friendly way.



Ask away! Were there express trains in _The Lord of the Rings_? Or was that simply the translator's descriptive addition for modern readers? Did a Troll really bake bread for a Hobbit according to _The Adventures of Tom Bombadil_? Or was that simply Hobbit fancy from a poem?




Annatar said:


> So you don't really know what you can take literally in the Hobbit, what Bilbo really wrote (and revised again) and what Tolkien made of it (and what Bilbo actually experienced).



But surely one could write a summary of Bilbo's story, exclude what are (at least arguably) a modern translator's additions, and even disregard what is arguably "Hobbit fancy" -- and still end up with a solid enough tale of the events that prove important to the History of Middle-earth.

Especially when employing the Hobbit story as peppered throughout _The Lord of the Rings_, including the Appendices.



Annatar said:


> That's why I think Tolkien's idea of the Red Book somehow getting into his hands is really brilliant, because it allows for different interpretations and possibilities.



I agree. Brilliant. An idea which _include_s that Bilbo's false account was set down by him in his memoirs "and he seems never to have altered it himself, not even after the Council of Elrond. *Evidently it still appeared in the Red Book,* as it did in several of the copies and extracts." JRRT, Prologue, _The Fellowship of the Ring_

And by "Red Book" we are talking about in-world sources that exist to be translated, which if we include Bilbo's translations from the Elvish, includes various tales and texts from much older times, which together with other ancient texts could be considered a . . .

. . . Legendarium


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 25, 2022)

Personally, at least in my idea of legendarium, all the books by Tolkien or books that Tolkien started to write but were completed by someone else, fall into this category. I think there is a bit of difference between the Tolkien Legendarium, and the Middle-Earth Legendarium. Tolkien's writings expanded out from the world of Men and Elves. Certain books of his had absolutely no ties to The Lord of the Rings, Silmarillion, or Hobbit books, that are most commonly franchised.


----------



## Olorgando (Jul 26, 2022)

JRRT's problem with his legendarium was that he spent too long a time, and intermittently, and with shifting focuses (languages, annals, Great Tales, poems, synopses) to ever be able to craft an internally consistent version that also was consistent with his magnum opus. Writing back (the previously unrecorded) Galadriel into the First Age was something he never resolved to his satisfaction, for example. And never mind the first two volumes of HoMe with their radically (and unworkable) framework, after about 40 years later his tastes had changed, as can be seen in his comments in Humphrey Carpenter's "Letters" on works by other authors that he re-read decades later - hence "Smith of Wootton Major", for example. Volumes 10 and 11 of HoMe, "Morgoth's Ring" and "The War of the Jewels" show him floundering desperately, with waning energies, to convert several more volumes of HoMe into "books of lost tales" - that infamous "but one can't write like that anymore" that he never explained. Thus HoMe (and Hostetter's supplement NoMe) remain a mass of unresolved contradictions.

Add to that volumes 6 to 8 and part of 9 of HoMe dealing with the development of JRRT's writing on LoTR, and Rateliff's HoTH doing the same for the manuscript versions of TH - 

John Garth may have nailed it with his Postscript to his 2003 book "Tolkien and the Great War":
"If we were lucky enough now to survey a twentieth century in which there had bee no Great War, we might know of a minor craftsman in the tradition of William Morris called J.R.R. Tolkien; or we _{*very* few}_ might know him only as a brilliant academic."


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 26, 2022)

Olorgando said:


> John Garth may have nailed it with his Postscript to his 2003 book "Tolkien and the Great War":
> "If we were lucky enough now to survey a twentieth century in which there had bee no Great War, we might know of a minor craftsman in the tradition of William Morris called J.R.R. Tolkien; or we _{*very* few}_ might know him only as a brilliant academic."


Or then again, we might have ended up with a complete and (almost) consistent Silmarillion to go with the Hobbit and LotR.


----------



## Olorgando (Jul 26, 2022)

Gothmog said:


> Or then again, we might have ended up with a complete and (almost) consistent Silmarillion to go with the Hobbit and LotR.


Uh-uh. If I read Garth's book correctly, there would have been no Middle-earth before the horrific carnage at the Battle of the Somme starting July 1916, in which JRRT lost two of his three closest friends, G.B. Smith and R.Q. Gilson. There might have been a "Hobbit" - without the Necromancer (off-stage), Elrond, those swords from Gondolin ... The "sequel" to that Hobbit - had there been any demand, which I would cast into doubt, as those M-e bits hovering on the fringe of the story are what made it exceptional - would most likely have been a second children's book - if JRRT had ever gotten around to writing it at all.


----------



## Ent (Jul 26, 2022)

*WHAT IF*:

WHAT IF things had been this-a-way,
WHAT IF they had been that.
WHAT IF the most important thing
was get another hat.

WHAT IF we’d stop the threat of war.
WHAT IF we’d change the world.
WHAT IF disease was wrapped away
never to be unfurled.

WHAT IF such things could really be.
WHAT IF such things could not.
WHAT IF instead of chasing such,
we deal with what we’ve got.

WHAT IF is an elusive thing.
WHAT IF can bring a fight.
WHAT IF expends great energy
in trying to be right.

WHAT IF may best be left alone.
WHAT IF we did just that?
WHAT IF we chose to see instead
the place we’re really at?

WHAT IF indeed has its right place
when *future* is in view.
WHAT IF should not of *history*
attempt to make things new.


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 26, 2022)

Olorgando said:


> Uh-uh. If I read Garth's book correctly, there would have been no Middle-earth before the horrific carnage at the Battle of the Somme starting July 1916, in which JRRT lost two of his three closest friends, G.B. Smith and R.Q. Gilson. There might have been a "Hobbit" - without the Necromancer (off-stage), Elrond, those swords from Gondolin ... The "sequel" to that Hobbit - had there been any demand, which I would cast into doubt, as those M-e bits hovering on the fringe of the story are what made it exceptional - would most likely have been a second children's book - if JRRT had ever gotten around to writing it at all.


No matter how you read Garth's book, unless he also goes by the name of Doctor Steven Strange, I don't see how he can say how much of Middle-earth would exist if the had not been the Great War. There would have been differences certainly but there have also been other conflicts and plenty of human nastiness to cover much of what is in LotR.


----------



## Elthir (Jul 26, 2022)

Olorgando said:


> that infamous "but one can't write like that anymore" that he never explained.



Of course, if you disagree (as I know you do) that one can no longer write like this, then yes, I can see you wanting to push Tolkien further, to explain "why not" . . .

. . . but to my mind, the question becomes moot. See below.



Olorgando said:


> Thus HoMe (and Hostetter's supplement NoMe) remain a mass of unresolved contradictions.



That's not unexpected in draft texts though, noting the history of the writing of _The Lord of the Rings._

Anyway, Tolkien's late framework is pretty consistent (part of which was published in the 1960s too), and it allows for the *retention of the older myths.*

The _Myths Transformed_ papers that deal with _Quenta Silmarillion _are brief enough, and this part of the external tale doesn't end in the late 1950s of course (not that anyone said it did).

"It is remarkable that he [JRRT] never *at this time* seems to have felt that what he had said in this present note [Myths Transformed, Text 1] provided a resolution of the problem that he believed to exist." Christopher Tolkien

I agree with remarkable -- and yet not remarkable, then, that JRRT would land on the same resolution later, addressing it with the Numenor slash Bilbo framework, and the later characterization of _The Silmarillion_ as a mostly Mannish work.

In short, in my opinion Tolkien realized that he didn't need to write a new Silmarillion in which, for example, the Sun existed *before* the Eldar passed Over Sea -- and besides, he had already told that story (of a Sun existing before the Eldar passed Over Sea) through Treebeard in _The Lord of the Rings_.


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 26, 2022)

Well-aged Enting said:


> *WHAT IF*:
> 
> WHAT IF things had been this-a-way,
> WHAT IF they had been that.
> ...


Amazing poem. Speaks my thoughts about practically everything in verse. 'Tis the time to enjoy life and not worry about changing it. This is beautiful.


----------



## Ent (Jul 26, 2022)

Elbereth Vala Varda said:


> Amazing poem. Speaks my thoughts about practically everything in verse. 'Tis the time to enjoy life and not worry about changing it. This is beautiful.



Thanks. At my age, I'm a bit past "what if's" for the most part.
Too much time spent where we are not detracts from quality time spent where we are.

And the time spent where we are not tends to put us in the 'reactive' rather than 'proactive' mode needlessly.
Only where we are can be impacted in any meaningful way.
When our mind is where we're not, all sorts of things can happen in the where we are that we need to run to catch up with before we can even address them... a bit of a shame.
And, when we're dealing with where we're not, we're normally looking at "hopes and expectations" rather than the "is" - which I think I've written on elsewhere already. If not, I'll be happy to bring it out for a look-see.

p.s. - Bombadil may be the best example we have of one who lives "now". He simply "is". There's little of the 'what if' about him at all. (As presented in LoTR. I haven't read the rest of him yet.)


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 26, 2022)

Well-aged Enting said:


> Thanks. At my age, I'm a bit past "what if's" for the most part.
> Too much time spent where we are not detracts from quality time spent where we are.
> 
> And the time spent where we are not tends to put us in the 'reactive' rather than 'proactive' mode needlessly.
> ...


This is all so true. Something I need reminders of often.

Bombadil is a good role-model in this element, in certain other elements, such as introductions or singing, you may not want to follow him completely. After all, "Hey come, merry dol!" is a rather unused greeting by almost everyone.


----------



## Annatar (Jul 26, 2022)

Elbereth Vala Varda said:


> After all, "Hey come, merry dol!" is a rather unused greeting by almost everyone.


Why? For me, that's completely normal.

Whereas I would say "doll" rather than "dol".


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 26, 2022)

Annatar said:


> Why? For me, that's completely normal.


Is that so? I would not expect such words from Annatar... I suppose appearance often harbors deceit.


----------



## Annatar (Jul 26, 2022)

Elbereth Vala Varda said:


> I suppose appearance often harbors deceit.


😂 Irrational conspiracy theory.

Like most people in power (or "politicians" as it is called lately), at least according to polls and personally rigged, er, I mean objectively counted, public media and election results, I am very popular and that is all that matters. Do you have any doubts about that? Then I'm afraid you are doomed and a crazy conspiracy theorist. Guards, put this woman behind bars!


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 26, 2022)

Annatar said:


> 😂 Irrational conspiracy theory.
> 
> Like most people in power (or "politicians" as it is called lately), at least according to polls and personally rigged, er, I mean objectively counted, public media and election results, I am very popular and that is all that matters. Do you have any doubts about that? Then I'm afraid you are doomed and a crazy conspiracy theorist. Guards, put this woman behind bars!


_I speak not of matters to deal with such. 'Tis I, Elbereth Vala Varda, and indeed I question that you might ever use such greeting.

I can see that the concealment of Evil knows no bounds in blissful oddity._


----------



## Annatar (Jul 26, 2022)

Hey, come, merry doll! Why so harsh and so angry tonight?
Maybe I don't always speak as Annatar, but sometimes as other versions of my alter ego. Ever thought of that? 😉
Reducing me to certain ideas you are used to is a nasty way of discrimination.
Wait and see what other surprising things I'll say or shapes I'll use from the second of September. (I'm going to surprise myself on that one...)


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 26, 2022)

Annatar said:


> Hey, come, merry doll! Why so harsh and so angry tonight?
> Maybe I don't always speak as Annatar, but sometimes as other versions of my alter ego. Ever thought of that? 😉
> Reducing me to certain ideas you are used to is a nasty way of discrimination.
> Wait and see what other surprising things I'll say or shapes I'll use from the second of September. (I'm going to surprise myself on that one...)


Ah, forgive me. I suppose alter egos are quite common amid this place. We can both agree that such an introduction would not be so commonly used by Annatar however, yes? 

I am CERTAINLY not trying to discriminate. Just joking around-- honestly. 

Wow. I am sure I have a lot of unique phrases to look forward upon!


----------



## Annatar (Jul 26, 2022)

Elbereth Vala Varda said:


> Ah, forgive me. I suppose alter egos are quite common amid this place. We can both agree that such an introduction would not be so commonly used by Annatar however, yes?


Absolutely, my lady. I simply can't afford to spawn a separate character for every situation in this realm, although of course that wouldn't be a problem for me in Middle-earth (at least before the fall of Numenor).


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 27, 2022)

Annatar said:


> Absolutely, my lady. I simply can't afford to spawn a separate character for every situation in this realm, although of course that wouldn't be a problem for me in Middle-earth (at least before the fall of Numenor).


I suppose that makes sense. After all-- expecting you to be constantly in character would be a bit strange, as I don't know near anyone who does such.


----------



## Ent (Jul 27, 2022)

Elbereth Vala Varda said:


> I suppose that makes sense. After all-- expecting you to be constantly in character would be a bit strange, as I don't know near anyone who does such.



On thank goodness. (The Enting shakes out his knotted branches, inching tentatively back out from the deeper forest where he'd run.)

I was wondering if I was suddenly in the Role Play section, looking at some real animosity, or just what here. 😧
I have places to run to hide, but... 

It's for the visitor I fear
whenever contention seems near
as they don't know what's fake or real
but only see fomenting zeal,
as back and forth the verbiage goes
and seems to increase as it flows.
So off they go to other clime,
not wanting here to spend their time.


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 27, 2022)

Well-aged Enting said:


> On thank goodness. (The Enting shakes out his knotted branches, inching tentatively back out from the deeper forest where he'd run.)
> 
> I was wondering if I was suddenly in the Role Play section, looking at some real animosity, or just what here. 😧
> I have places to run to hide, but...
> ...


Ah, I see... Sorry for the confusion. While your words are certainly very eloquent, and tell great truth, there is another way such verbiage can effect visitors:

For some this language seems quite queer,
Yet some into these words do peer,
And find that whether real or fake,
These, the kind they wish to make,
For attractive to them is the flowing sound,
In joy and sadness, these words abound,
And so led by this strange speaking way,
The visitor does in here stay.

It was roleplaying indeed that first truly awakened me in this Forum, for I loved the uncertainty of it, and the words with which each of us spoke. It was this that truly brought me to speak and be spoken to here, and for such reason, I treasure it.


----------



## Ent (Jul 27, 2022)

Elbereth Vala Varda said:


> Ah, I see... Sorry for the confusion. While your words are certainly very eloquent, and tell great truth, there is another way such verbiage can effect visitors:
> 
> For some this language seems quite queer,
> Yet some into these words do peer,
> ...



It is quite true that many find
differing thoughts that fill their mind.
Exchanges such as seen above
do not mean we've put on glove.
And likely the types coming here
are well acquainted with such cheer
as role play brings participants
who spar with such great elegance.
So surely longer in this clime 
I'll lose my concern over time.


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 27, 2022)

Well-aged Enting said:


> It is quite true that many find
> differing thoughts that fill their mind.
> Exchanges such as seen above
> do not mean we've put on glove.
> ...


Indeed it is, as was for me,
That some in roleplays like to be.
And for that reason, I still do try,
To use this speech in some threads nigh,
For to some, these ways appeal,
Where none can tell if fake or real.
And perhaps you'll find even in you,
That such speech might be right to do.
As such is quite an eloquent type,
Where one can cheer or speak or gripe,
For no limits lay on speech sublime,
Within the portion of this clime.


----------



## Ent (Jul 27, 2022)

Elbereth Vala Varda said:


> Indeed it is, as was for me,
> That some in roleplays like to be.
> And for that reason, I still do try,
> To use this speech in some threads nigh,
> ...



With great respect - I think I shall leave such entertainments to others more adept, keeping my own involvements to the simplistic level as already once spoken: "The Enting shakes out his knotted branches, inching tentatively back out from the deeper forest where he'd run."

This is sufficient adaptation to satisfy that "Well-aged" part of me.


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 27, 2022)

Well-aged Enting said:


> With great respect - I think I shall leave such entertainments to others more adept, keeping my own involvements to the simplistic level as already once spoken: "The Enting shakes out his knotted branches, inching tentatively back out from the deeper forest where he'd run."
> 
> This is sufficient adaptation to satisfy that "Well-aged" part of me.


I understand this completely. All of your small hints to the character of yourself, be it a reference to Ent-wives, or this exact quote listed above are delightful to see.

It is undeniable that you are indeed Well-aged Enting.


----------

