[Ivriniel]

I'd rather steer away from 'forcing' the reader and instead enjoy some unorthodox positioning of arguments.

So - the points about dates of authorship are well and truly attended to in materials upstream (I'll re-post the summary URL and highlight the post where I address the idem about dates of authorship.

Yes, the dreaded chapter 5 was the revised text, which is the point about back-editing the Hobbit after LotR was begun (but recall, Tolkien also had a first draft of LotR going in the Fellowship for Unwin and Allen to read, that retained the original Hobbit unedited).

However, in accordance with what Tolkien actually did to himself with his own works, my arguments do much the same. Why is it allowable for the author to vary interpretation of his very own text (as he certainly did in the prelude of the 19 sixty something edition), and yet others may not.

Of course, Tolkien has interpreted the very same text in two streams of meaning, pre and post Hobbit revisions.

So - I am not arguing that which has been posited. I have a distinct position.

Kind Regards

Edit: with regards to my use of the term '...interpreted...' I refer to text outside of chapter IV.