The History of LotR - Chapter-by-Chapter Companion

[Mister Underhill]

I'm setting this thread up as a companion piece to the Chapter-by-Chapter discussions now taking place in the sub-forum by that name. Some dedicated Tolkienophiles have said that, in addition to the LotR read-through, they will also try to do a read-through of the History of Middle-earth volumes that deal with the writing of LotR:

Vol. 6 - The Return of the Shadow
Vol. 7 - The Treason of Isengard
Vol. 8 - The War of the Ring
Vol. 9 - Sauron Defeated: The End of the Third Age
Vol. 12 - The Peoples of Middle-earth

The Chapter-by-Chapter discussion welcomes appropriate side-references to HoME, but those who wish to go into greater depth may do so on this thread.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I’m reading The Return of the Shadow for the first time and have heard some things about it on other discussions, but I discovered one fact I hadn’t heard before – in his first version of ‘The Long-Expected Party’, Tolkien ends with Bilbo announcing his intention to marry!! That was a real surprise, and I started thinking about the difference it would have made if he had actually done so, and the hero had been one of his descendants.

For one thing, it would have destroyed our discussions on the comparison between the Ring and a relationship with a woman! Had Bilbo not been a bachelor, that theory wouldn’t have worked. I wonder, could that have been – in the back of Tolkien’s mind, even subconscious, perhaps – a reason he changed that?

Bilbo married… doesn’t that make a fascinating subject for conjecture?! What kind of wife would he have chosen – a typical homebody Hobbit woman, as opposites often attract each other? Or would he have chosen someone like his mother Belladonna, with an adventurous streak? Would she have gone on his travels with him, even on his last trip to Rivendell? Or would she have died ‘conveniently’ after raising their children? How would she have reacted to the Ring? Would she have seen its inherent danger intuitively, nagged him about it, or tried to use it herself? Or would he have used it to get away when he was tired of listening to her?

Perhaps some of those questions occurred to Tolkien and that was his reason for eliminating a wife from Bilbo’s life – it would have been too complicated. The explanation he gives within the context of the first version of Chapter 1 is interesting:

Then how could he get married? He was not going to just then – he merely said ‘I am going to get married’. I cannot quite say why. It came suddenly into his head. Also he thought it was an event that might occur in the future – if he travelled again amongst other folk, or found a more rare and more beautiful race of hobbits somewhere.
(my emphasis on ‘said’ )

Isn’t that interesting?! Bilbo was not even considering a normal hobbit wife – apparently he felt himself to be too different to find a compatible soul near his home. I wonder, does ‘other folk’ mean another race? Would he have gone so far as to wish for a ‘fairy wife’?!

The explanation of hobbit marriage customs is most amusing!

They kept it (always officially and very often actually) a dead secret for years who they were going to marry, even when they knew. Then they suddenly went and got married and went off without an address for a week or two (or even longer).

I can’t help but think that Tolkien was drawing on his own experience here – that sounds like something he would have liked to do! (And I imagine there are many males who would agree… )

Even more interesting – the neighbours chalked up Bilbo’s sudden disappearance (in The Hobbit) to having gone and gotten married! They couldn’t figure out to whom, though, since no one else had disappeared.

Even after a year they would have been less surprised if he had come back with a wife. For a long while some folk thought he was keeping one in hiding, and quite a legend about the poor Mrs Bilbo who was too ugly to be seen grew up for a while.

Isn’t that absolutely hilarious?!

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Even more interesting – the neighbours chalked up Bilbo’s sudden disappearance (in The Hobbit) to having gone and gotten married! They couldn’t figure out to whom, though, since no one else had disappeared. Isn’t that absolutely hilarious?!

That is.

And, I suppose, that is the source of third edition of The Hobbit remark of:

It was often said (in other families) that long ago one of the Took ancestors must have taken a fairy wife. That was, of course, absurd

As such a remark is not present in first edition (that is, if my memory does not fail me)

It looks like Tolkien was mocking himself out (besides it being, of course, absurd in a more literal way, too, and creating the sense of familiarity for the reader, showing there is more to the world hobbits live in than is described in the book)

[Bêthberry]

It looks like Tolkien was mocking himself out (besides it being, of course, absurd in a more literal way, too,

Tut, tut, HI! And what do we have in LotR but the River-daughter? Goldberry may not be a fairy wife, but she is daughter of a river spirit and controller of weather herself. (Of course, there are those who think Tom and Goldberry are absurd, I guess.) The Old Forest is full of feys and spriggans and boggarts I think, only they like the hobbits aren't so visible.

[HerenIstarion]

Point taken

But Tom Bombadil was not a hobbit, was he? (hush, I don't intend this thread to become another TB battlefield...)

Besides, this sentence of 'being absurd', applies to Beren/Luthien, Tuor/Idril and Aragorn/Arwen marriages in a way. For what are hobbits? Mortals, i.e., men. And what are fairies? elves, i.e. immortals. Apart from those specially [Eru] granted unions, the notion is absurd.

[davem]

Of course, Tolkien made, what, half a dozen attempts to start LotR, & what's significant is that the narrative voice changes subtly with each one, starting out by being as prominent as in the Hobbit, & by the end apparently disappearing.

Paul Edmund Thomas' essay 'Some of Tolkien's narrators' (in Tolkien's Legendarium) is definitely worth reading in full, as he examines Tolkien's use of narrative 'voice', but here's a few qoutes from it:

‘My father’ says Christopher tolkien in the foreword the Return of the Shadow, ‘bestowed great pains on the creation of LotR’, & ‘the first part of the story, before the Ring left Rivendell, took by far the most labou to achieve.’ The first chapter, which CT considers a ‘rather extreme case’, shows signs of these emense pains because it evolves through six versions & was revised three times before the hobbits ever shouldered their packs & set off on their eastward journey....

The title of the opening chapter, with its playful allusion to ‘An Unexpected Party’’ obviously shows tolkien’s attempt to write a sequel to The Hobbit, to maintain continuity with it, & yet to write something new. Tolkienattempts the same things with the new narrator.

One similarity that the new narrator appears to share with his predecessor is the amiable tendency to address his readers directly: ‘I am going to tell you a story about one of his [= Bilbo’s] decendants, & if you had only read his memoirs up to the date of Balin’s visit - ten years at least before his birthday party - you might have been puzzled’. As his predecessor did, this new narrator directly tells the readers the subject of his story, & thus he appears to be as self conscious & as solicitous for his readedr’s understanding as his predecessor....

However, examining the similarity illuminates a notable difference. the narrator of the Hobbit is an informed historian who knows much about things like Dragons, the history of the Elves, & the nature of Hobbits. Yet although he is learned in the ways of hobbits, he is clearly not a hobbit....

The new narrator, on the other hand, is not so easily discerned, for he reveals niether his nature nor his knowledge with clarity. ...The narrator (of the first version) appears to know none of the details of Bilbo’s journey to the Lonely Mountain: he seems to know only that Bilbo disappeared, which to his mind was an ‘odd’ thing to do& something that Bilbo never explained...He appears to have no patience for Bilbo’s contribution to the Red Book, which he calls ‘a nonsensical account’. Thus in contrast to the narrator of the Hobbit, he appears to be ulearned & unliterary. This narrator seems to believe that Bilbo’s disappearance was socially abnormal, & he says that it took some time for the community to feel easy about Bilbo afterward....In brief, the new narrator seems to be a conventional Hobbiton Hobbit. ...(But is this really the case? Thomas goes on):.. the first version offers evidence that instead of having created an ignorant & narrow minded hobbit as the narrator, Tolkien has created a sophisticated ironical narrator who speaks opinions tongue in cheek. ...If the narrator were an ignorant hobbit, why would he allude with precision to a text that he has already dismissed as ‘a nonsensical account’? Second, after making himnself the spokes man for public decency in Hobbiton, this new narrator suddenly turns on the hobbits & criticizes their intelectual ability.

(In the third & fourth versions), Tolkien continues to intensify the irony in the narrator’s voice by juxtaposing more pointedly ignorant uterances with the knowledgeable ones he penned in the second version.

Fifth version: It is clear (the narrator) knows both the stories that Bilbo told & the information in the book in which Bilbo ‘recounted things he had never spoken about.’ Further, this narrator does not seem to find fault either with Bilbo’s stories or with Bilbo’s memoirs.

(Sixth version) The remarks of this narrator are not pointedly ironical: he does not pretend to be ignorant while demonstrating his knowledge. And he is not judgemental: the interpretive remarks about ‘strange happenings’ & about Ham Gamgee’s having ‘the most attentive audience’ do not seem to be his opinions; rather, they seem to be the opinions of the community, which he is reporting. This narrator seems impartial: he sides neither with Bilbo nor with the community who think him strange.

(Anyone still here?) Anyway, the question that arises for me, is the extent to which the narrative style determines the story, & to what extent the changes in the story dictate the change in narrative 'voice'.

Its almost as if we have (in the beginning) half a dozen different accounts, all of which, if the narrator was to be given free reign, would go off in different directions - six different Hobbit sequels, & Tolkien simply makes a choice as to which story he's going to tell us. And it seems as if the determining factor is his decision to write not a sequel to the Hobbit, but the final chapter of the Legendarium. Perhaps that's when it started to become a 'consciously Catholic' work - or at least when the seed was planted.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

I've read this essay and it's a good one. It's easy to see from his analysis that the change in the narrator voice is gradual. With each draft there is a subtle shift in emphasis.

I will need to think about your more general query on the narrator. Meanwhile, I wanted to share some ideas. There were several things that struck me as I read through the earliest drafts:

• Tolkien used notes and outlines to brainstorm: these are often the earliest statement of the ideas and themes that were to assume such importance in his story (and which we love to talk about).
• Not surprisingly, the ideas put forward in the notes and outlines sometimes weren't integrated into the characters and narrative till weeks or even months later.
• Also not surprising, later and earlier ideas continue to co-exist in a single draft of a chapter so sometimes you have a very strange mix.

Here's one instance. There was a set of notes produced in the first six weeks of Tolkien's writing, certainly certainly prior to February 1, 1938. In this, Tolkien made several points about the nature of the Ring and Bilbo's inability to resist it:

Not very dangerous when used for good purpose. But it exacts its penalty. You must either lose it, or yourself. Bilbo could not bring himself to lose it.

(The italics are Tolkien's.....)

In another brief scheme dating from the same period...

Ring must eventually go back to Maker, or draw you towards it. Rather a dirty trick handing it on?

In the first quote, JRRT still maintained the Ring could be used for a good purpose: this idea would change later. But he already saw the Ring as an irresistable lure, pulling whoever uses it towards its Maker. The interesting thing is that the actual writing of the chapter didn't directly reflect Bilbo's dilemma until draft 6. Indeed, in draft 5, Bilbo is shown freely giving the Ring to Gandalf: it is Bilbo's idea and not Gandalf's to give the Ring to Bingo. It's only in draft #6 that Bilbo admits he can't throw it away and even has trouble leaving it behind. From the way CT structures his book, it seems that drafts #5 and 6 were compiled many months later than the first four or the notes I cited.

One example of strange things being mixed together is a draft called "Of Gollum and the Ring". This was apparently written in those first six weeks: at one point it was intended as the foreward for the entire book. It was a discussion between Bingo and Gandalf that supposedly took place before the party. Parts of it eventually became Shadows of the Past.

Some of this draft reads like a continuation of The Hobbit. For example, Gandalf advises Bingo that the only way to be protected against the evil of the Ring is to treat it as a joke. Gandalf also says one of the main reasons Bilbo liked Bingo was that the younger Hobbit was very good at jokes! Gandalf advised constructing a comic plan, a jest, so that he could slip out of Hobbiton, fooling the Hobbits and apparently the Ring. The last sentence reads: "Bingo was rocking with laughter." This does not exactly sound like any book I know!

Yet there are other parts of these same notes that eerily foreshadow what will happen in the story. The draft contains references to so many themes and incidents that were important in the book. Among these were the idea of destroying the Ring in Mount Doom, the importance of 'pity' in saving Bilbo, the stretching of life under the Ring, the relative invulnerability of the Hobbits to the Dark Lord, the phrase "Lord of the Rings", etc.. There is even a paragraph that sounds something like "providence" explaining how Bilbo got the Ring:

There was, of course, something much more mysterious behind the whole thing -- something quite beyond the Lord of the Rings himself, peculiar to Bilbo and his great Adventure. There was a queer fate over these rings, and especially [?this] one. They got lost occasionally, and turned up in strange places. This one had already slipped away from its owner treacherously once before. It had slipped away from Gollum too. That is why I let Bilbo keep the ring so long.

Sound familiar? However did he come up with so many of these themes and ideas in the first six weeks of writing?

[davem]

Child

As the main body of your post requires some thought (& careful re-reading of HoME, I'll come back on that later. One thing I can respond to now is:

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

I will need to think about your more general query on the narrator

I'm not sure it deserves it!

I suppose what I was getting at was the way Tolkien not only begins the story six times, the storyline each time being subtly different, but he creates a different narrator each time - as if the choice of story determined the narrative style. Or is it that he's struggling to find a narrative voice/approach he's comfortable with, & as he tries out different voices he comes up with different storylines? So was the story determined by the way he chose to tell it, or was the style determined by the content?

Its just a throwaway question, but it interests me - Tolkien wrote different kinds of stories, & he seems to have a range of narrative voices, & each 'voice' will tell a different kind of story. So, he begins writing the Hobbit sequel with a particular narrative 'voice' - similar to, but not exactly the same as the narrator of the Hobbit - which implies that even from the first he knew (if only subconsciously) that he would be telling a different kind of story. By the final draft he's moved closer to the 'high' style of the end of the Hobbit, but he's not quite there. Eventually, by the time he's decided that what he's really writing is the culmination of the Legendarium, the style has changed dramatically from the first draft, because that story could not be told by the first narrator. But the first narrator is entertaining, interesting, ironic - in fact, he's a very well realised character in his own right, & could have told a very entertaining story. Same with all the others.

So, its not a case of Tolkien starting out with a vaguely sketched story/narrative voice which he gradually 'improves' & deepens - any of the stories/narrators in the different drafts would have worked, but they would have gone in different directions. But is his final choice of which story to tell based on storyline or narrator?

I don't have the HoME,and I just want to ask a question :what differences are they between the list of the Bilbo's gifts in the first version and the same in the final book?
It's because a silly bet I made,so I'm sorry to trouble your very serious debate with a so trivial question...

Thanks

(I'm french so if you think that my english is horrible,don't worry,I think so)

[Bêthberry]

davem, and also Child and Esty,

I have only volumes II and XII, so I won't be able to follow along here--except teasingly as I have with Heren, who graciously accepted my humour--but I am very intrigued by the "six narrative voices" in the drafts.

davem has kindly at length copied excerpts from Paul Edmund Thomas' essay, but I would find it easier to consider his question about storyline or narrator if I could see some examples, not of Thomas' explication, but of Tolkien's own writing.

Is is possible to copy here a similar passage in the different narrative voices? Or if not, is is possible to take a passage which represents the tone of each narrative voice and present it here?

Child,

However did he come up with so many of these themes and ideas in the first six weeks of writing?

The variations you point out are fascinating. If I have read your excerpts correctly, Tolkien started out with some first idea of a character for this Dark Lord, who then became excised from subsequent drafts as an explicit character. If this suppostion is correct, it makes the final depiction of Sauron very interesting: a focus upon an opposing character who ultimately became absent, if I am making myself clear here! (I'm sure this point, too, should be followed through all revisions and drafts and not merely this six drafts of the first part.)

It would seem to me that Tolkien had many, many ideas and directions rambling around in that restless imagination of his and that in the process of writing something decided him upon the best way to proceed.

Here's hoping I don't have my foot on my keyboard, so to speak, since I don't have the relevant HoME.

[davem]

Bethberry

First version:

When Bilbo, son of Bungo of the family of Baggins ... prepared to celebrate his seventieth birthday there was for a day or two some talk in the neighbourhood. He had once had a little fleeting fame among the people of Hobbiton & Bywater - he had disappeared after breakfast one April 30th & not reappeared until lunchtime on June 22nd in the following year. A very odd proceeding for which he had never given any good reason, & of which he wrote a nonsensical account. After that he returned to normal ways; & the shaken confidence of the district was gradually restored.

Second version:

When Bilbo, son of Bungo, of the respectable family of Baggins prepared to celebrate his seventy first birthday there waas some little talk in the neighbourhood, & people polished up their memories. Bilbo had once had some brief notoriety among the hobbits of Hobbiton & Bywater - he had disappeared after breakfast one April 30th & had not reappeared until lunch time on June 22nd in the following year. A very odd proceeding, & one for which he had never accounted satisfactorily. He wrote a book about it, of course: but even those who had read it never took it that seriously. It is no good talking to hobbits about dragons: they either disbelieve you, or feel uncomfortable; & in either case tend to avoid you afterwards.

(CRT states the third & fourth versions are virtually the same - except for the names - but that Tolkien continues to intensify the irony in the narrators voice.)

Fifth version:

(doesn't give full text, but adds

He told many tales of his adventures, of course, to those who would listen. But most of the hobbits soon got tired of them, & only one or two of his friends ever took them seriously. It is no good telling ordinary hobbits about dragons: they either disbelieve you or want to disbelieve you, & in either case stop listening. As he grew older Bilbo wrote his adventures in a private book of memoirs, in which he recounted some things that he had never spoken about (such as the magic ring); but that book was never published in the Shire, & he never showed it to anyone except his favourite nephew Bingo.

Sixth version:

When Mr Bilbo Baggins of Bag-end, Under-hill, announced that he would shortly be celebrating his eleventy first birthday with a party of special magnificence, there was much talk & excitement in Hobbiton. Before long rumour of the event travelled all over the Shire, & the history & character of Mr Baggins became once again the most popular topic of conversation. the older folk who remembered something of the strange happenings sixty years before found their reminicences suddenly in demand, & rose to the gratifying occasion with entertaining invention when mere facts failed them.

No one had a more attentive audience than old Ham Gamgee, commonly known as the Gaffer. He held forth at the Ivy Bush.

Tindome

First version of Bilbo's gifts:

'For Semolina Baggins, with love from her nephew', on a waste paper basket - she had wrotten him a deal of letters (mostly of good advice). 'For Caramella Took, with kind remembrances from her uncle', on a clock in the hall. Though unpunctual she had been a niece he rather liked, until coming late one day she had declared his clock was fast. Bilbo's clocks were never either slow or fast, & he did not forget it. 'For Obo Took-Took, from his great-nephew', on a feather bed; Obo was seldom awake before 12 noon or after tea, & snored. 'For Gorboduc Grubb with best wishes from B Baggins' - on a gold fountain pen; he never answered letters. 'For Angelica's use' on a mirror - she was a young Baggins & thought herself very comely. 'For Inigo Grubb- Took', on a complete dinner service - he was the greediest hobbit known to history. 'For Amalda Sackville-Baggins as a present', on a case of silver spoons. She was Bilbo's cousin, the one he had discovered years ago on his return measuring his dining-room (you may remember his suspicions about disappearing spoons: anyway neither he nor Amalda had forgotten)

Thank you very very very very very much !

Puissent les Valar toujours éclairer votre route

[davem]

What I find interesting is that in the original version Bilbo is 'only' 70 years old. He declares he is (as Estelyn has pointed out) going away to get married - he will have many children, yet the real reason he is going away is that he has no money left. In the second version it is Bilbo himself who was orphaned - his parents drowned in a boating 'accident'. In the third he has already gone & we begin with his son, Bingo, who is still hiding, invisible due to the ring, in a cupboard, laughing at the upheaval caused by the distribution of the gifts. Strangely, while we have a more 'advanced' culture in the Shire - clocks & fountain pens, Lawyers eject Sanch Proudfoot from Bag End, etc, the geography of the Shire seems unknown - the Brandybucks are only vaguely known about.

It seems though that its with the fourth version that Tolkien begins to open up the tale:

Bilbo tells his son that: 'no-one can escape quite unscathed from dragons....Now I have spent all my money which seemed to me once too much & my own has gone after it (sic). And i don't like being without ...in fact I am being lured.....But at any rate I think I would rather wander as a poor man than sit & shiver...'

He notes: Asks Elrond what he can do to heal his money wish & unsettlement. Elrond tells him of an island. Britain? Far west where the Elves still reign. Journey to perilous isle.

I want to look again on a live dragon.

Bingo goes to find his father.

The Ring: whence its origin. Necromancer? Not very dangerous, when used for good purpose. But it exacts its penalty. You must either lose it, or yourself. Bilbo could not bring himself to lose it. He starts out on a holiday [struck out: with his wife] handing ring over to Bingo. But he vanishes. Bingo worried. Resists desire to go & find him - though he does travel round a lot looking for news. Won't lose ring as he feels it will ultimately bring him to his father.

At last he meets Gandalf. Gandalf's advice. You must stage a disappearance & the ring may then be cheated into letting you follow a similar path.

(At this time, believe it or not, one of Bingo's companions is called Vigo )

Bilbo goes to Elrond to cure dragon-longing, & settles down in Rivendell. Hence Bingo's frequent absences from home. the dragon-longing comes on Bingo. Also ring-lure.

(Bingo) sets out with nephews. ... Get lost in Old Forest. Adventure with Willowman & barrow-wights. T. Bombadil.

An alternative storyline has: Gandalf had turned up at Bag End. Bilbo tells him of desire for Wild & gold. Dragon curse working. He goes to Rivendell between the worlds & settles down.

Ring must eventually go back to its maker, or draw you towards it. Rather a dirty trick handing it on?

Its interesting how Tolkien is still trying to write his 'mythology for England' at this time -

Asks Elrond what he can do to heal his money wish & unsettlement. Elrond tells him of an island. Britain? Far west where the Elves still reign. Journey to perilous isle.

- its as though he's decided to tie in the Hobbit sequel to the Book of Lost Tales. Also that at this time he's visualising the events of the story as taking place in 'recent' history - Middle Earth must be the European continent, & its possibel for Bilbo to travel to Britain!

The power of the Dragon-curse is also interesting - when did Bilbo become 'cursed' - when he took some of the dragon hoard? Again a link into the LT - with the curse on Glaurung's treasure which eventually brings down Tinwellint (Thingol). Bilbo has no money, so he has to leave home & family to get some - he has no choice. Only Elrond's magic can cure him of the desire.

Then the ring - 'you must lose it, or yourself'. And Gandalf tells Bingo that he must disappear(!)
- & if he does the 'ring may becheated into letting him follow his father. So is the ring actually preventing bingo from going after Bilbo - Bilbo has to give up the ring in order to leave, & chase after dragon gold, & the only way Bingo can follow is if he 'cheats' the ring into letting him escape. Why would the ring work against the dragon-curse?

And finally, we have the recurring theme of the son who has lost his father & wants to go & find him - a theme repeated throughout the Legendarium & in both Lost Road & Notion Club Papers ( & also in Smith, with the lost Grandfather, who has returned to Faery?).

Of course, the oddest statement for me is

He goes to Rivendell between the worlds & settles down.

. Which will become truly significant when we get to Lorien....

[Bêthberry]

Vigo, eh? Talk about life imitating art.

But Semolina and Caramella! Shades of the Entish Bow RPGs here at the Downs. And Willowman!

It is intriguing to see Tolkien deciding between 'dragon-longing' and 'ring-lure' and juggling all his ideas.

It is no good telling ordinary hobbits about dragons: they either disbelieve you or want to disbelieve you, & in either case stop listening. As he grew older Bilbo wrote his adventures in a private book of memoirs, in which he recounted some things that he had never spoken about (such as the magic ring); but that book was never published in the Shire, & he never showed it to anyone except his favourite nephew Bingo.

This passage where the Hobbits' lack of imagination is mentioned in the context of Bilbo's writing is very intriguing. I wonder how much Tolkien felt that his own ideas of fantasy/the perilous realm were ridiculed by the more staid members of his own academic community. I think of his defense of Beowulf as the stuff of true story and art.

Thanks for posting that, davem.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Now that I've finished reading the first chapter of TRotS, I find that Tolkien himself answered some of the questions I asked after reading his first version. In the third version, Bilbo marries a Hobbit woman, but from a far end of the Shire - Primula Brandybuck! He does choose a person who is more adventurous and livelier than most Hobbits, apparently. And she leaves Hobbiton with him, both disappearing together. Primula survives into the next version, but no longer as Bilbo's wife - she becomes Bingo's mother when Bingo is changed, no longer Bilbo's son, but his nephew/cousin.

What I find very interesting in Christopher Tolkien's introduction to the fourth version is this statement:

Bilbo's marriage (as was inevitable, I think) has been rejected.

Why would he consider it "inevitable"?! Unfortunately, he doesn't explain that remark.

Another thing I find highly interesting is the fact that Tolkien gives his heroes mothers who have an adventurous influence on them. Bingo's grandmother is, like Bilbo's mother, one of the remarkable, fabulous Took daughters; by contrast, his father is described as 'quite unimportant'.

And so the Tooks come in again - always a disturbing element, especially when mixed with Brandybuck.

Later it is said of Bingo:

He went about a good deal with the least well-behaved members of the Took family (his grandmother's people); and he was also fond of the Brandybucks (his mother's relatives).

I can't help but wonder - why the mothers?!

One more minor observation that I find amusing - Otho Sackville-Baggins is a lawyer by profession in the fourth version. Does that reflect Tolkien's own attitude toward lawyers, I wonder? I don't remember his profession being mentioned in LotR.

[The Saucepan Man]

Please excuse someone who has read little of the HoME series butting in.

It is no good telling ordinary hobbits about dragons: they either disbelieve you or want to disbelieve you, & in either case stop listening.

It does Tolkien credit as a writer that he was able ultimately to work this idea into his story without having the narrator say it. Instead, he has the likes of the Gaffer and Ted Sandyman in conversations in The Ivy Bush and The Green Dragon convey the view of "ordinary" Hobbits.

One more minor observation that I find amusing - Otho Sackville-Baggins is a lawyer by profession in the fourth version. Does that reflect Tolkien's own attitude toward lawyers, I wonder?

Glad to see that the oft-used device of lawyer-as-baddie has an honourable history (despite, to my mind, being wholly unfair ).

[mark12_30]

Esty wrote:

I can't help but wonder - why the mothers?!

Because his own mother inspired him so?

I'm on the fourth draft (I think) and I am charmed to find that some favorite punchlines came from the first draft. Others were added in in successive drafts.

I understand that "it was necessary" that Bilbo's marriage be discarded; but still, the idea of Bingo as Bilbo's son had (for a moment) tremendous charm. It reminded me of Child's point that Frodo, as Bilbo's adopted heir, *was* his adopted-son.

More later, I hope... falling behind already...

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bb,

If I have read your excerpts correctly, Tolkien started out with some first idea of a character for this Dark Lord, who then became excised from subsequent drafts as an explicit character. If this suppostion is correct, it makes the final depiction of Sauron very interesting: a focus upon an opposing character who ultimately became absent, if I am making myself clear here!

That sounds so logical, Bethberry, but I don't think he did. I would welcome other views on this, but after reading the first three chapters, my gut feeling is that Tolkien never really thought of the Dark Lord as an explicit character. He seems more like a distant shadow, always seen through the eyes of others. This is in direct contrast to the Ring, which takes on a sinister physical appearance early on, and also different from the Black Riders, who are also carefully drawn from the beginning. Perhaps he intended to build up to the point later in the story where we would actually see the Dark Lord, but I don't think we can tell for certain.

In his earliest notes, the Dark Lord is only identified as the 'Necromancer', following along with the story that had deveoped in The Hobbit. However, the Ring already begins to take on a more direct identity, especially with the mysterious reference to Primula that implies the death of Bingo's mother was somehow connected with the Ring. Here is a more complete quote for you to judge. This comes from the first chapter of Return of the Shadow. The italics and parenthetical expressions are Tolkien's.

The Ring: whence its origin. Necromancer? Not very dangerous, when used for good purpose. But it exacts its penalty. You must either lose it, or lose yourself. Bilbo could not bring himself to lose it. He starts on a holiday [ struck out: with his wife] handing over ring to Bingo. But he vanishes. Bingo worried. Resists desire to go and find him - though he does travel round a lot looking for news. Won't lose ring as he feels it may ultimately lead him to his father.

At last he meets Gandalf. Gandalf's advice. You must stage a disappearance , and the ring may then be cheated into letting you follow a similar path. But you have got to really disappear and give up the past. Hence the 'party'.

Bingo confides in his friends, Odo, Frodo, and Vigo (?) insist on coming too. Gandalf rather dubious. You will share the same fate as Bingo, he said, if you dare the ring. Look what happened to Primula.

In the second chapter of Return of the Shadow, which traces the path of the Hobbits out of the Shire and their meeting with Gildor, there is explicit characterization of the Black Riders. While I don't want to get into detail at this early point in the discussion, CT himself was struck by the fact that, although the plot line and many of the characters were not yet set, the menace of the Ringwraiths is quite close to what emerged later in the book.

It is only when we get into the third chapter of RS, into the proposed foreward called "Of Gollum and the Ring" that we see the first explicit reference to the 'Lord of the Ring"(in the singular). Yet once again, the Dark Lord is not clearly drawn: the phrase is used only as a means to describe the Black Riders:

"Who are they?"

"Servants of the Lord of the Ring- [? people] who have passed through the Ring."

I do believe Tolkien was lured onward by the Ring! Right from the beginning, the emphasis is more on the Ring and "Ringwraiths" than on the Dark Lord himself..... By the time the Gollum foreward was written, Tolkien was fairly consistently in capitalizing "Ring" as would befit a major character (which he hadn't done in the earlier drafts).

There are a number of passages where Gandalf described how the "Ring-Lord" (that itself is an interesting name!) made the rings and passed them out to ensnare various folk. Yet even here, as in the final form of the book, the Dark Lord is only seen through Gandalf's narration. The name of Sauron has not yet been set down on paper.

********************

On to another topic......as someone who is fond of Hobbits, there is a quote I find fascinating that comes immediately after this. The language sounds straight out of The Hobbit, yet the situation is deadly serious, and the Dark Lord is here referred to in more explicit terms:

..."Bilbo is all right. It is you and all these other dear, silly, charming, idiotic, helpless hobbits that trouble me! It would be a mortal blow if the dark power should overcome the Shire, and all these jolly, greedy, stupid Bolgers, Bagginses, Brandybucks, Hornblowers, Proudfoots, and whatnot become Wraiths.

Bingo shuddered. "But why should we?" he asked; and why should the Lord want such servants, and what has all this to do with me and the Ring?"

"It is the only Ring left," said Gandalf. "And hobbits are the only people of whom the Lord has not yet mastered any one."

Gandalf goes on to point out that Elves, Men, Dwarves, and Goblins had all accepted the Dark Lord's Rings; only the Hobbit did not have any. And then G. begins to tell the tale of Digol (later called Gollum), who was of a family akin to the Hobbits, and explains how the "missing" Ring came to him.

What an intriguing idea! How interesting to identify the uniqueness of a people in this fashion: their lack of a magic ring. Because of this, there is also a hint (at least to me) that the Ring coming to Gollum at this time may not have been wholly an accident! Perhaps the Dark Lord (or the Ring?) had decided it was time to score another point. By contrast, on the very next page, Gandalf goes on to make a reference to the "strange accidents" that govern this particular Ring, a portion I quoted in my last post -- which is surely the first veiled reference to providence. Leave it to Tolkien to imply two different things leading off in different directions!

I'm purposely quoting chunks of this so people can see. If you prefer, I'll cut back on the detailed quotes.

**************

Hey, talk about foreshadowing! How about the presence of Vigo in the "Fellowship"?

[davem]

Estelyn

What I find very interesting in Christopher Tolkien's introduction to the fourth version is this statement:
Quote:
Bilbo's marriage (as was inevitable, I think) has been rejected.
Why would he consider it "inevitable"?! Unfortunately, he doesn't explain that remark.

Why can't he have Bilbo getting married? Well, Tolkien has already told us at the end of The Hobbit that Bilbo lived happily ever after to the end of his days

As we're starting the Shadow of the Past discussion today, I've knocked together something.

Apologies first of all, because Child has made some of the folowing points, but I put this together last night, & can't face going over the whole thing to excise anything repititious.

The first version of the Shadow of the Past is interesting in the way it shows how Tolkien was developing the concept of the Rings.

Gandalf is telling Bingo about the fate of the hobbits if the Enemy should be victorius:

It would be a mortal blow if if the dark power should overcome the Shire, & if all these jolly, greedy, stupid Bolgers, Bagginses, Brandybucks, Hornblowers, Proudfoots & whatnot became wraiths’.

Bingo shuddered. ‘But why should we?’ he asked; ‘and why should the Lord want such servants, & what has all this to do with me & the Ring?’

It is the only Ring left,’ said Gandalf. ‘And hobbits are the only people of whom the Lord has not yet mastered any one.

‘In the ancient days the dark master made many Rings, & he dealt them out lavishly, so that they might be spread abroad to ensnare folk. the elves had many, & there are now many elf-wraiths in the world; the goblins had some & their wraiths are very evil & under the command of the Lord. The dwarves had seven, but nothing could make them invisible. In them it only kindled to flames the fire of their greed...In this way the master controlled them. Men had three rings, & others they found in secret places cast away by the elf-wraiths: the men-wraiths are servants of the Lord, & they brought all their rings back to him; till at last he had gathered all into his hands again that had not been destroyed by fire - all save one.

It fell fromthe hand of an elf as he swam across a river; & it betrayed him, for he was flying frompursuit in the old wars, & became visible to his enemies, & the goblins slew him. But a fish took up the ring & was filled with madness, & swam upstream, leaping over rocks & up waterfalls until it cast itself on a bank & spat out the ring & died.

So we have the rings made, not by Elves seduced by the dark Lord, but by the dark Lord himslef, & we have multiple wraiths - even elvish ones. Any one who possesses a ring becomes a wraith. But these wraiths are not automatically servants of the dark Lord - only the men-wraiths. We even have elf wraiths casting their rings away (to become what?) Also, there is a definite similarity between what the effect of the Ring on the fish, & the effect of the Silmaril on Carcharoth.

But then it gets even more interesting:

There was long ago living by the bank of a stream a wise, clever handed & quiet footed little family. I guess they were of hobbit-kind.....The most inquisitive & curious-minded of that family was called Digol...He found the ring in the mud of the river-bank under the roots of a thorn tree; & he oput it on, & when he returned home none of his family saw him while he wore it. He ws pleased with his discovery & concealed it, & he used it to discover secrets, & put his knowledge to malicious use, & became sharp-eyed & keen-eared for all that was unpleasant.

So, no Smeagol! No murder. This Gollum is an innocent corrupted by the Ring. But then why call it a ‘birthday present’ (apart from the fact that one could say that this was the day ‘Gollum’ was ‘born’). But he goes the same way as Smeagol & retreats to the caves under the mountains. Eventually he wants to be free of it:

He wanted to slip out & leave the mountains, & smell the open air even if it killed him...But that would have meant leaving the Ring. And that is not easy to do. The longer you have had one the harder it is.

So he decides to give it away. And then Bilbo happens along. (At this point Tolkien is still bound by the account in the original Hobbit) .

Later Gandalf gets around to telling Bingo how the Ring can be destroyed:

I fancy you would have to find one of the Cracks of Earth in the depths of the Fiery Mountain, & drop it down into the Secret Fire, if you really want to destroy it.

So, the Secret Fire (capitalised in the original) is within the earth! But Ainullindale was already written by this time, & the Secret Fire was established as the equivalent of the Holy Spirit, so what is Tolkien’s meaning here? The Secret Fire , in the depths of the earth is the only thing that can destroy the Ring.

In the second version: Ancient History, there is more detail about the dark Lord:

Both elves & dwarves were troubled, especially those that occasionally arrived or passed by coming from a distance, from east or south. ...they constantly mentioned the Necromancer, or the enemy; & sometimes referred to the Land of Mor-dor & the Black Tower.

In this version though, the hobbits will become ‘enslaved’, not turned into wraiths, if the Necromance wins. But its still the Necromancer who makes the Rings. Interestngly, when he loses the one ring he loses control of all the others & their possesors. The elves, though, are a different case:

But the Elves resist his power more than all other races; & the high-elves of the West, of whom some still remain in the middle-world, percieve & dwell at once both [in] this world & the other side without the aid of rings.

So the high Elves exist in two worlds simultaneously - reminding one of Frodo’s Ring-induced vision of Glorfindel at the Ford of Bruinen, where he saw the Elf as a being of ‘shining light’.

As to men:

But all the Nine Rings of men have gone back to Sauron, & borne with them their possesors, kings, warriors & wizards of old, who became Ring-wraiths & served the maker, & were his most terrible servants

Interesting to see that the whole idea of the Istari has not yet appeared - wizards were among the Ring-wraiths. So Gandalf himself is still human - in the story at this point he is said to have aged quite a bit since the events of the Hobbit. Perhaps this accounts for Gandalf’s fear of the ring - other wizards have succumed. Also at this time we have the story of Gilgalad (sic), Orendil, & his son Isildor, who cut the Ring from Sauron’s hand. But the Ring is still spat out by a fish & found by Digol.

In the ‘Fourth Phase’ version, Gandalf tells Frodo (yes, we’re finally at Frodo!) :

There are many sorts of ring, of course. Some are no more than toys (though dangerous ones to my mind) & not difficult to contrive if you go in for such things - they are not in my line

- as CRT notes, preparing the way for Saruman ring maker. Its in this version that the Smeagol/Deagol storyline appears, as do the ‘Cracks of Doom in the depths of Ororuin, the fire-mountain’. But Gandalf doesn’t mantion the making of the rings, so the whole history of the Elven smiths of Eregion hasn’t appered (or hasn’t been written down. Generally, though, this version follows the lines of the final published version.

What strikes me is that any of the versions would have worked as stories, but there is a sense that Tolkien ‘knew’ subconsciously the story he really wanted to tell & was struggling along till he became conscious of it.

(I know, I know! Like the tourist who was asked what she thought of her first production of Romeo & Juliet, & replied 'She didn't like it because the writer had used too many quotes')

As to quotes, its difficult to discuss HoME because you don't know how many people have read it, & if you don't give quotes then you exclude people. Besides, I don't expect many (any) people to have read all this post

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Moving on to the current parallel chapter, I find it very interesting to read that the horse and rider showed up in an early draft, but that they weren’t a Black Rider as yet. As a matter of fact, it was Gandalf who showed up! This seems typical for Tolkien’s style of writing – a character appears without being planned, and his identity is gradually developed. CT says that the idea of the rider being Gandalf was abandoned almost immediately, though the fact that he sniffed stayed! In his comments at the end of this chapter, he writes:

…it is deeply characteristic that these scenes emerged at once in the clear and memorable form that was never changed, but that their bearing and significance would afterwards be enormously enlarged. The ‘event’ (one might say) was fixed, but its meaning capable of indefinite extension; and this is seen, over and over again, as a prime mark of my father’s writing.

In the light of later developments, as we’re discussing on the Chapter 3 thread, I find this sentence strangely ominous: “There was no danger: for they were still in the Shire.” Not much later, a black rider appears.

It’s interesting that the poems are very close to their final versions in these early drafts. Apparently Tolkien was more certain of them than of the narrative.

The conversation with Gildor diverges from the final version in several passages. The one I found most fascinating was Bingo’s explanation of his reasons for leaving the Shire at this time.

I had come to the end of my treasure. It had always held me back from the Journey which half of my heart wished for… So I said to my stay-at-home half; “There is nothing to keep you here. The Journey might bring you some more treasure, as it did for old Bilbo; and anyway on the road you will be able to live more easily without any. Of course if you like to stay in Hobbiton and earn your living as a gardener or a carpenter, you can.” The stay-at-home half surrendered; it did not want to make other people’s chairs or grow other people’s potatoes. It was soft and fat. I think the Journey will do it good. But of course the other half is not really looking for treasure, but for Adventure – later rather than sooner. At the moment it also is soft and fat, and finding walking over the Shire quite enough.

Here we see the torn Frodo again – half adventurous and half homebody. We also see the well-to-do gentleman – or rather, gentlehobbit! – who is not used to working himself. And we see wealth as a stumbling block to adventure.

Gildor’s answer is this:

…If you go looking for Adventure, you usually find as much of it as you can manage. And it often happens that when you think it is ahead, it comes on you unexpectedly from behind.

He does give advice in the early version, though he says that Elves seldom do; he advises Bingo to go to Rivendell, as well as telling him not to identify himself to a Rider, and not to use the ring to escape, saying:

…I guess that the use of the ring helps them more than you.

In the final version, there is no direct mention of the ring in this conversation.

[davem]

Oh, I thought this thread was dead! That's why I threw in my thoughts about the most interesting (to me) episode in the early drafts in the main chapter by chapter discussion. I'll repeat what I posted, & maybe someone will feel like taking it up here:

We also discover more about Frodo & his role. One thing I wanted to pick up on from the early drafts is part of the conversation with Gildor which didn’t make it into the final version:

I find this fascinating. Bingo (=Frodo), like Sam, is ‘torn in two’. Half of him wants to remain an ordinary hobbit, the other half wishes to leave & enter a different world - yet, the half of him that wishes to leave is ‘fated’ to go. He is called, against his will (or the will of his hobbit half) to a higher destiny. The hobbit half will have to surrender to that desire. And that hobbit half will be changed so much that by the end it will have to ‘ rediscover the changing seasons & voices of friends when they have been lost.’ The hobbit half will have to be ‘submerged’, put on hold, till the destiny of his other half has been fulfilled, &yet that hobbit half will be changed by the experience - so changed that it will have to learn how to be a hobbit all over again.

The other interesting thing Gildor says is: ‘For that must be the purpose of your fate, or the purpose of that part of your fate which concerns you yourself.’ Which means? Only part of Bingo’s fate concerns himself. So he has a ‘fate’ which only partly concerns himself. Yet how can Bingo’s fate not concern himself (not concern himself at all if we take Gildor’s words literally).

Perhaps Gildor is stating that there is a kind of ‘universal fate’, which involves each of us, of which our individual fate is a small part? Or perhaps he is implying that the fate of ‘Bingo son of Drogo’ is only a small part of the fate of a ‘greater’ being, whose life in Middle Earth is not the be all & end all.

I suspect that Tolkien felt he had strayed too far into metaphysics in this conversation & decided to cut the whole thing. But its fascinating to speculate where he was going. My own feeling is that, like the religious element, this idea was taken up into the story itself. I think its present in Frodo’s story, but Tolkien has decided he doesn’t want to have any character spell it out so blatantly.

Hopefully what we've both posted on this chapter will spark some response. I'm going to have to go over it all again, as I've forgotten a lot of the points I wanted to explore!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Oh, I thought this thread was dead!

Not if I can help it! I'm continuing with my reading of The Return of the Shadow and intend to keep on with the discussion, though not every chapter has a lot of discussable content. Keeping up with the current CbC thread, I've read Ch. VI, 'Tom Bombadil'. Unfortunately, it doesn't say much about Goldberry; I wonder if what Tolkien wrote about her was more subconscious than conscious. He did however deliberately and early on choose the water-lily motive for her.

Here are a few scattered thoughts about the early drafts:

TB is called an 'aborigine' - interesting word!

Then the question:

Barrow-wights related to Black-riders. Are Black-riders actually horsed Barrow-wights?

Apparently the nature of the Black Riders was not yet defined; they became Nazgul later on.

Farmer Maggot was originally not a hobbit, but

a being of a wholly different kind, and akin to Bombadil.

[mark12_30]

I doubt (even setting aside, for the moment, Esty's fiery promise) that this thread will die! It's bound to be slower than the main discussion, but it will trickle along at least. I think the early chapters are so frantically busy with major and minor edits and re-writes it's hard to post on them sometimes. For me, anyway.

I have posted little because I find Bingo quite hard to relate to. He is quite far from the Frodo Baggins I so cherish. I find myself more interested in Frodo Took, the precursor of Pippin. He seems, to me, to have more of the Frodo-ish qualities that I so cherish in the finalized Frodo; he is more sensitive, more mystically oriented, yet level-headed and not a Pippinish ditz. I'm quite fond of Frodo Took, even though he is quite clearly Not Frodo Baggins, and Not Pippin Took. I haven't posted much because I'm still sorting out who the characters are in and of themseves, which is hard because they keep changing! I think that, like Trotter and Strider, they are and will remain separate characters for me; still, they are also clearly connected. A bit of a puzzle.

Marmaduke! *shakes head* Clearly Merry; much more Merry than Odo is Sam, or FrodoT is Pippin, or Bingo is FrodoB. And yet that name makes me chuckle every time. ... I was quite relieved when he finally morphed into Merry.

The development of the main characters is just awesome to watch.

[Aiwendil]

I haven't posted much because I'm still sorting out who the characters are in and of themseves, which is hard because they keep changing!

I feel exactly the same way. When I read HoMe VI I thought I was paying very close attention to every intricacy, but the Hobbit names are now a complete jumble in my mind.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I'm now reading Chapter IX in RotS; the first half corresponds with the 'Strider' chapter of FotR. In the light of the CbC discussion of Strider as Aragorn, noble, kingly and inspiring love in story characters as well as in us readers, it's interesting to compare Trotter, the Ranger hobbit with him. I must say, I find the latter very much lacking!

There is little implied mystery and depth to Trotter; he is described in Gandalf's letter as a "wild hobbit: dark, long-haired, has wooden shoes!" It seems to me that the word "ranger" is used in the generic sense of "wanderer", not having a specific purpose nor a set definition. As a matter of fact, he tells the hobbits that "not all rangers are to be trusted"! So who are the rangers? Are they various races? Is there a coordinated purpose to their wandering? And how on earth do wooden shoes contribute positively to walking in the wild?! (Can you imagine traversing the bogs of the Midgewater Marshes with wooden shoes?!)

The most important Bree characters - Butterbur, Bill Ferny - are hobbits as well! That makes Bree seem less foreign, less interesting too.

Gandalf was there a few days earlier, which is less disturbing than the final version of the story.

I guess the word "less" sums up my impression of the early drafts of this chapter. It gains so much by the time it becomes what we are now familiar with: The book's most fascinating character (in my opinion), the "All that is gold" poem, and Gandalf's amusing characterization of Butterbur...

[mark12_30]

Interesting, Esty; I know that Trotter has less depth than Strider, of course, but (perhaps due to Child's influence) I found him fascinating. By LOTR it seems that Hobbits can only be found in two places-- The Shire and Bree. In a similar vein, Rohirrim are found in Rohan, etc; everyone is localized. Why would the Dunedain be the ONLY travellers? Aside from Gildor and Strider and Black Riders, what other travellers in the wild do we meet? The place is pretty empty.

I guess I (very much) liked the idea of turning a corner and meeting a wandering Hobbit.

[Child of the 7th Age]

....perhaps due to Child's influence

Now I know why my ears were burning this afternoon! I do like Trotter: I have used him or similar hobbit Rangers in many a Shire RPG. But I will certainly admit that Aragorn lends a depth to LotR that is simply missing with Trotter.

It is only with the character of Aragorn that we see the vital link forged to the Legendarium as a whole. LotR ceases to be simply a sequel to the Hobbit and becomes a tale linked to Silm and the whole history of Middle-earth.

Even more than Gandalf, the Dunedain have a history, a sad and tragic past, that gives depth and meaning to everything that will come about in Lord of the Rings. So many themes present in the earlier history find their fullest expression in Aragorn: the creative gifts of the Elves passing to Men, the hoped for moment when Aragorn finally 'corrects' the terrible mistake his ancestor made, the restoration of Numenor's promise in a different guise and form, even the reaffirmation of Man's potential that we first glimpsed in the character of Beren.

I like Trotter just where he is: in the middle of the pages of HoMe. Aragorn belongs in LotR. He and Frodo are in many respects mirror images of each other, reflective of a very old theme. Frodo is the sacrificial figure who must give up his life to restore the vitality of the land. Aragorn is the new king ruling over a land that is cleansed and enriched because of Frodo's sacrifice. Trotter is fun but, without Aragorn, the story lacks that rich nuance and sense of history that I find so compelling.

[mark12_30]

Child, you put it so eloquently... Yes, Bingo and Trotter's story is different than Frodo and Strider. It's a different book. And I like it that way. It's almost like they are ancestors, or something. (Parallel Universe, anyone? )

[davem]

Its different near the Shire

And so it is, because with the appearance of Strider we are suddenly in a bigger, older world. If Tolkien had continued with his original idea we would have remained in the world of the Hobbit, Bombadil & Farmer Maggot.

Aragorn changes the whole story. As Child says, he is the link to the Sil. This is fascinating for me. The appearance of a single character changes the whole story. It is no longer to be a children's book, it is no longer to be a fairy story, it even changes its purpose - no longer a sequel to the Hobbit, its now the culmination of the Silmarillion.

Having said that, I like Trotter, & I can't help wondering what kind of adventures he'd have lead the hobbits on. Of course, one could speculate that as time passed. at least for hobbits in their rural isolation, the whole history of the end of the Third Age became a fairy story - Bilbo became 'Mad Baggins' who disappeared with a bang & returned with wagon loads of treasure, Sam chased black men up mountains & Aragorn became a mysterious hobbit who wore wooden shoes. Its almost like Tolkien first 'discovered' this version, & then slowly worked backwards to discover 'what really happened'.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

What an interesting thought, davem! Strider/Aragorn as the key to the story, not just the Ring! He is the connection to the depth of history, as Child has mentioned on the CbC discussion. That could be the reason why I can’t get used to Trotter, as Aragorn is just too important to me to replace him with someone else. I haven’t yet gotten to the point of being able to like Trotter as a different character. However, the idea of “wild hobbits” fascinates me! (I’ve finished reading Chapter IX, ‘Trotter and the Journey to Weathertop’.) What potential for a fan fiction there!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I have now finished reading The Return of the Shadow and am embarking on The Treason of Isengard (HoME VI and VII, respectively). Since the first book goes back to recap the various versions of FotR, it doesn't get farther than Balin's tomb in Moria, which Tolkien mentions as a point where he tarried long before continuing. Though it is interesting to follow the progression the story makes, there hasn't been a whole lot on which to comment. Here are some of the random impressions I have so far:

Bingo has become Frodo by now - thankfully!! Could I, or any of you, for that matter, have taken LotR so seriously had the hero been named Bingo?

Sam has joined the hobbits, though his characterization is not yet clearly cut. (Ditto for the other hobbits - their comments and actions are often interchangeable, as their number, names and characterizations are not yet finalized.)

Trotter is still there, though there are indications that he is to be exchanged for a Man. Some dialogues and actions are interchangeable with Aragorn, but he is a different character. I have grown more accustomed to than fond of him, but in his background story as originally planned by Tolkien, he is a Boffin, which makes him a logical character to show up in my Folco Boffin fan fiction. The biggest eye opener about Trotter was the reason why he wears wooden shoes. I won't spoil that for anyone who hasn't read it yet, but I must say, I was shocked!

Since Aragorn is not yet there, there is also no Arwen...

And am I the only one who thinks that the early portrayal of Gandalf was considerably more irascible and short-tempered than that which made it into the final version?!

[davem]

Well, I haven't been reading HoME in the same way as you. I've been reading each version of the various chapters sequentially - which has meant reading both Return & Treason, & sometimes three or four versions of feach chapter, & then thee final version in LotR. Its been both confusing & enlightening. Mostly confusing though - which is why I haven't contributed to this thread. My few insights have gone into the main Chapter-by-chapter thread - & here I must apologise, because I have a hellishly long post for the Farewell to Lorien thread - which I can't see anyone reading all the way through! As well as HoME I've drawn on The Road Goes Ever On.

To respond to your points, though: Gandalf is certainly more irrascible, even occasionally nasty, Bingo/Frodo is developing into the character we know, but its obvious that, as Carpenter has said, Tolkien was writing blind, & often its clear that he had no idea, even into the third or fourth versions, of where he's going, or what kind of book he wants to end up with. Its clear, I feel, that he took a long time to find his feet, & much of the early stuff is clumsy. We do see a masterpiece forming before our eyes, & we can only be grateful to CT for what he's given us - we'll never have anything like HoME again.

Oddly, though, I still think we don't get a complete insight into Tolkien's genius, even with all this material. I read it, & still feel there must have been this incredible ferment going on in his subconcious. You can see his struggle to discover 'what really happened' & set it down. I'm reminded of Jung's writing of the 'Seven Sermons to the Dead', which apparently produced all kinds of psychic & synchronous events, till he set it down, & which he believed had not come from his own mind, but had been 'given' to him, that he had been chosen to communicate it. Clearly, Tolkien could not leave this story till it had been told.

[Mithalwen]

I have been rereading the return of the shadow as research for a RPG, I find it quite fascinating and heartily second Davem's thanks to CT. It is clear that his task was in it's way as daunting as the Ring Quest and that equally, he did not fully realise it's magnitude when he started. I have to admit I find his notes a source of joy - I imagine there were many moments of "severe initial confusion" and I howled with laughter at his recollection of the "Bingos" as demonic and appalling when the Carpenter bio gives a rather cutesy image of the family of toy koalas, which made the name Bingo even more horrific. I wonder how the story would have progressed of the main character had shared his namesake's "demonic character (composed of monomaniac religious despotism and a lust for destruction through high explosive)"?