Bilbo´s treachery

[Ivriniel]

He was writing on a version on the Hobbit in December 1937. The book involved a series of starts.

The story of the One Ring --was quick -- to emerge. And his Silmarillion stuff was his earlier works, and as I recall, during earlier years after WWI. Ah God, we all know this stuff here, don't we?

The Lord of the Rings, as a title was conceived in Spring of 1938. Not published until later--we all know that--so what.

So, Zigur, what's your point. And also Galadriel, what's yours?

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Do you recall that or not?

Are you talking about the "queer look" that Gandalf gives Bilbo in Chapter 5? I think that this may be a revision, but it doesn't change the fact that the material in Chapters 13 to 17 dealing with the Arkenstone does not appear to have been revised, which would show that Professor Tolkien wrote Bilbo's actions that way before he conceived of the Ring as being an evil influence. Maybe in hindsight the Ring could be hypothesised to have had a role, albeit one never stated as such by Professor Tolkien, but there was definitely a time in the published history of the text when it did not.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

So, Zigur, what's your point.

My point is that the Ring probably didn't influence Bilbo to treachery, or at least Professor Tolkien probably didn't mean it that way, because when he came up with that narrative he had not yet conceived of the Ring as a corruptive object which influenced people to do evil things.
Maybe if you treat the narrative as a consistent whole it could be considered, but I'm merely saying that from a certain point of view, external to the narrative, it doesn't seem like we're meant to think that the Ring influenced Bilbo in this way. If you were to read The Hobbit in isolation, for instance, the Ring's influence would not be evident.

EDIT: I was once able to find a page which systematically listed all of the revisions made between the first and later editions of The Hobbit but at present I can't find it...
EDIT 2: It's this page, but it only lists the revisions made to "Riddles in the Dark", which was after all the most substantial place where changes were made. There were other changes as well, but I'm fairly certain the idea of Bilbo giving the Arkenstone to Bard was present from the beginning. I believe the revisions outside of "Riddles in the Dark" were fairly minor.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Are you talking about the "queer look" that Gandalf gives Bilbo in Chapter 5? I think that this may be a revision, but it doesn't change the fact that the material in Chapters 13 to 17 dealing with the Arkenstone does not appear to have been revised, which would show that Professor Tolkien wrote Bilbo's actions that way before he conceived of the Ring as being an evil influence. Maybe in hindsight the Ring could be hypothesised to have had a role, albeit one never stated as such by Professor Tolkien, but there was definitely a time in the published history of the text when it did not.

My point is that the Ring probably didn't influence Bilbo to treachery, or at least Professor Tolkien probably didn't mean it that way, because when he came up with that narrative he had not yet conceived of the Ring as a corruptive object which influenced people to do evil things.
Maybe if you treat the narrative as a consistent whole it could be considered, but I'm merely saying that from a certain point of view, external to the narrative, it doesn't seem like we're meant to think that the Ring influenced Bilbo in this way. If you were to read The Hobbit in isolation, for instance, the Ring's influence would not be evident.

EDIT: I was once able to find a page which systematically listed all of the revisions made between the first and later editions of The Hobbit but at present I can't find it...
EDIT 2: It's this page, but it only lists the revisions made to "Riddles in the Dark", which was after all the most substantial place where changes were made. There were other changes as well, but I'm fairly certain the idea of Bilbo giving the Arkenstone to Bard was present from the beginning. I believe the revisions outside of "Riddles in the Dark" were fairly minor.

No.

“For Isildur would not surrender it to Elrond and Círdan who stood by. They counselled him to cast it into the fire of Orodruin night at hand... But Isildur refused this counsel, saying: 'This I will have as weregild for my father's death, and my brother's. Was it not I that dealt the Enemy his death-blow?' And the Ring that he held seemed to him exceedingly fair to look on; and he would not suffer it to be destroyed.” I don't need to quote citation, I hope.

So - spelling it out, Isildur succumbing immediately. But of course, I can already hear the objection "the Ring was still near Orodruin and recently on Master's hand, and more powerful..." yada yada.

So, then Sméagol's "...birthday present..." and two Holbytlan battling to the death after Deagol finds the Ring.

And, I won't patronise the reader by digging out the quotes from Gandalf, warning that The Ring exerts its influence, immediately upon the user. The Shadow of the Past leaves its imprint. (And no, there's no real indication that the Ring was to be an artefact of lesser perversion because the Hobbit "was published first". Come off it. Prof John had Sauron's big vengeance plan ready to rock for aeons). Nor the dire warning Gandalf implied, when Bilbo spared Gollum, and the comments about "...pity..." staying Bilbo's hand, which perhaps explained the slower perversion of Bilbo.

Then there was that Bilbo wore the thing for a very long time in Thranduil's halls.

Is that not enough, yet for you Zigur? Or have I somehow missed something in the mythology?

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

And no, there's no real indication that the Ring was to be an artefact of lesser perversion because the Hobbit "was published first". Come off it.

Literally all I'm saying is that The Hobbit, including the parts about the Arkenstone etc, were written before Professor Tolkien had conceived of the idea that the Ring corrupted people.

He did not invent this idea until after he had written The Hobbit.

Prof John had Sauron's big vengeance plan ready to rock for aeons

As far as I am aware, this is not the case. Until he began drafting and planning what became The Lord of the Rings, which was after The Hobbit was initially published, Professor Tolkien had only narrated what happened after the First Age as far as Númenor was concerned.

This did involve Sauron surviving and being a character in the narrative of Númenor, but the corresponding events in Middle-earth at the same time, especially the forging of the Rings of Power, had simply not been invented yet, and were not invented until it came to drafting The Lord of the Rings. When The Hobbit was written, Professor Tolkien did not imagine that the Ring was Sauron's Ring or that it was an evil object that influenced its bearer. He had not invented those parts of the story yet.

The drafts and notes published by Christopher Tolkien in The Return of the Shadow show this, I believe.

This is all I am trying to say.

EDIT: I am not doubting that the Ring influenced people to do evil/dubious things - of course not - just trying to suggest that it probably wasn't what Professor Tolkien had in mind when he was writing The Hobbit.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Literally all I'm saying is that The Hobbit, including the parts about the Arkenstone etc, were written before Professor Tolkien had conceived of the idea that the Ring corrupted people.

He did not invent this idea until after he had written The Hobbit.

I can't see how that can be the case. Do you have citations, because they'd be interesting to look at. Can you post them please.

My response:

Glaurung.....Smaug.....Sauron.....
Erebor.....Dwarves....Balrog.....First Age. He wrote First Age notes well ahead of the Hobbit. Why does 1927 come to mind?

as Númenor was concerned.

This did involve Sauron surviving and being a character in the narrative of Númenor, but the corresponding events in Middle-earth at the same time, especially the forging of the Rings of Power, had simply not been invented yet, and were no invented until it came to drafting The Lord of the Rings.....

When The Hobbit was written, Professor Tolkien did not imagine that the Ring was Sauron's Ring or that it was an evil object that influenced its bearer. He had not invented those parts of the story yet.

he was writing The Hobbit[/I].

Don't buy it. Mr Bad Boi Sauron (Annatar was bit hot, I'd have imagined, and would have roused a bit of Noldor death-lust, I'm sure). I'm sure JRRT would have had Sméagol/Gollum in his fore as he put the Hobbit together in the 30's, some nine or so years after his pouring out of First Age Notes, and only a year before The Lord of the Rings was titled as the sequel....

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

I can't see how that can be the case.

Well, I'm sorry, but it is.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Do you have citations, because they'd be interesting to look at. Can you post them please.

Everything relevant is in The Return of the Shadow. I will post a couple of things, but looking further is up to you. It is an extensive text.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

He wrote First Age notes well ahead of the Hobbit.

He wrote "Quenta Silmarillion" before The Hobbit, yes. I am not denying this.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Don't buy it.

I'm sorry, but really? "Don't buy it"?!? Your flat refusal to even consider that what I'm saying might be true makes me question the purpose of doing this.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Mr Bad Boi Sauron (Annatar was bit hot, I'd have imagined, and would have roused a bit of Noldor death-lust, I'm sure). I'm sure JRRT would have had Sméagol/Gollum in his fore as he put the Hobbit together in the 30's, some nine or so years after his pouring out of First Age Notes, and only a year before The Lord of the Rings was titled as the sequel....

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

To quote The Return of the Shadow, in Professor Tolkien's original conception of what became The Lord of the Rings, the Ring did not matter at all. There are four drafts presented before Professor Tolkien even begins considering the Ring as more than a possible "motive" for "Bungo" (the character before Frodo) to go looking for Bilbo, and when he does, he is not even sure if it is related to Sauron:

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.

[The Return of the Shadow Part I (v)]
Going into more detail would involve quoting huge quantities of The Return of the Shadow. Reading the Histories of Middle-earth is really invaluable for sorting out the order in which Professor Tolkien invented these various elements.

The Treason of Isengard even shows that at one point Professor Tolkien imagined that the Rings of Power (other than Sauron's, admittedly) had been made in Valinor by Fëanor in the First Age:

In those days the Rings of Power were made. It is said that they were fashioned first by Feanor the greatest of all the makers among the Elves of the West, whose skill surpassed that of all folk that are or have been.

The history of the Second Age didn't exist at all at this point, and Professor Tolkien did not yet have a firm idea of what happened. These are all musings which occurred after The Hobbit was initially published, incidentally.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Well, I'm sorry, but it is.

I'm good at conceding a point, Zigur, when there is cause to. I have an ego, like all humans, but it embarrasses me more to fail to yield ground and I find it embarrassing when others don't. I find that it is an adult skill to tolerate some argy-bargy and to enjoy debate. But, I'd like to see you ground your point in some materials, please, especially since you asserted that The Ring doesn't act immediately, and that The Ring was not part of Prof's thinking/notes at Hobbit time.

Please do explain this more, but with materials please.

Everything relevant is in The Return of the Shadow. I will post a couple of things, but looking further is up to you. It is an extensive text/

.

Yes, I know. That's my point, so please let's have a look at what it is I seemed to have missed, that inspired you to cross-post over my comments.

Let's start with a shorter post. They get too long and too many points (of that I am often guilty). Let's take your two assertions as I've summarised them.

[Ivriniel]

I'm going to bed now, and will no doubt, find materials here am. Take your time. Again, it's your two assertions I'm testing, as The Ring doesn't have immediate influence over a bearer, and secondly, that The Ring wasn't conceived as a malevolent artefact in The Hobbit.

Please give consideration to my upstream materials as well. Especially those with dates of publications, and titles:

The Lord of the Rings - the TITLE but ONE YEAR behind the Hobbit's release in the 30's. "Lord".....who - if not Sauron - who did he have in mind?

PS - I wonder if Annatar had sex with the Noldor in the Ost In Edhil? These themes are never discussed and I often wonder why not. Case in point: Maeglin. It's a bit off topic, but I'm curious to hear your comments about this.

Cheers

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

you asserted that The Ring doesn't act immediately

I do not believe I said this and am not debating it. I am merely saying that Professor Tolkien did not think the Ring was evil when he wrote The Hobbit.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

The Ring was not part of Prof's thinking/notes at Hobbit time.

Please do explain this more, but with materials please.

I have given you quotes from The Return of the Shadow to show that he only came up with these ideas later. They may have been a short time later, but they were later.

I don't know what else to say. Remarks about being "embarrassed for" me are not appreciated. I have given you quotes from The Return of the Shadow and The Treason of Isengard to prove my point and you seem to have simply ignored them. In these posts you repeatedly claim that I haven't given you evidence when I have!

I also note that you have not provided evidence to support your claim that Professor Tolkien did already have these things in mind, which seems to make it rather moot.

And no I don't think Sauron had some kind of liaison with any of the Gwaith-i-Mírdain. I do not perceive "Annatar" as a sexually attractive figure, although I realise many do; personally I believe that his "fairness" was an impression of supreme majesty, wisdom and intellect that he gave those who saw him - perhaps excessively so, hence the mistrust this fostered in Gil-galad, Elrond and Galadriel.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

We never find out what measure of Bilbo's treachery was motivated by the then hold the ring exerted over Bilbo

We don't know whether or not he would have conceived the plot to place the dwarves on the back foot had there been no ring

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

What does anything have to do with anything, really, except as a discussion point or random expression of curiosity.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

So, Zigur, what's your point. And also Galadriel, what's yours?

My point is that you can't just throw out an idea that's not directly connected to the discussion preceding it without explanation and expect me to immediately agree. An explanation is also a key aspect of discussion, you know.

The only aspect of the Ring I can sense behind Bilbo's decision is invisibility. It's a tool without which it would have been much more difficult for Bilbo to succeed in his plan. Would this plan, or a variation of thereof to account for lack of invisibility, have existed had the Ring not been there? I think so, because that's what Bilbo would do. Did Bilbo have an attachment to the Ring? Perhaps or perhaps not. I really can't see why it matters, and if you think it does, then please explain the merits of your idea that attachment and dependence on the Ring was a main factor in pushing Bilbo to give the Arkenstone to Bard and the Elven King. You're the one who's making the claim; the evidence is first and foremost your responsibility.

And, yes, you need to do some convincing before I will see your side of the issue. I picture Gollum, a character who we all can agree is dependent on the Ring. What would he do in a similar situation? "Friendses, they said. Liars, and cheats! We have done our job, yesss.... They are treacherous, my precious, but we are good. Let those false friendses die in battle, and we will sit snuggly here and get more reward. Yes!" This is one of the several possible scenarios that came to my mind. But one scenario that I don't see happening is Gollum betraying a friend's trust for the benefit of the friend, not for his own gain or Ring-lust.

So please explain why it would matter so much in this situation that Bilbo was already attached to the Ring. Once you establish this connection, we can debate the extent of such attachment.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

PS - I wonder if Annatar had sex with the Noldor in the Ost In Edhil? These themes are never discussed and I often wonder why not. Case in point: Maeglin. It's a bit off topic, but I'm curious to hear your comments about this.

Then make a thread about it. Stop throwing out irrelevant ideas.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

My point is that you can't just throw out an idea that's not directly connected to the discussion preceding it without explanation and expect me to immediately agree. An explanation is also a key aspect of discussion, you know.

My point is, again, what's your point.

The only aspect of the Ring I can sense behind Bilbo's decision is invisibility. It's a tool without which it would have been much more difficult for Bilbo to succeed in his plan. Would this plan, or a variation of thereof to account for lack of invisibility, have existed had the Ring not been there? I think so, because that's what Bilbo would do. Did Bilbo have an attachment to the Ring? Perhaps or perhaps not. I really can't see why it matters, and if you think it does, then please explain the merits of your idea that attachment and dependence on the Ring was a main factor in pushing Bilbo to give the Arkenstone to Bard and the Elven King. You're the one who's making the claim; the evidence is first and foremost your responsibility.

And, yes, you need to do some convincing before I will see your side of the issue. I picture Gollum, a character who we all can agree is dependent on the Ring. What would he do in a similar situation? "Friendses, they said. Liars, and cheats! We have done our job, yesss.... They are treacherous, my precious, but we are good. Let those false friendses die in battle, and we will sit snuggly here and get more reward. Yes!" This is one of the several possible scenarios that came to my mind. But one scenario that I don't see happening is Gollum betraying a friend's trust for the benefit of the friend, not for his own gain or Ring-lust.

So please explain why it would matter so much in this situation that Bilbo was already attached to the Ring. Once you establish this connection, we can debate the extent of such attachment.



Then make a thread about it. Stop throwing out irrelevant ideas.

Its rubbish, don't you think to assert that Bilbo -- didn't -- lie to Gandalf about how he procured the ring? Don't you think, such --rubbish-- coming out of the Hobbit's mouth would mean that it was --rubbish-- to assert that the Ring wasn't doing it's zshoo zshoo hahaha (as in I am literally crying with laughter at this point) by the time Bilbo planted it on his lil-ole Hobbity-finger.

Such assertions, Galadriel in your prose also convey tacitly -- off topic -- descriptors. Don't we all. I've never found a purism in any thread.

A topic on whether or not Annatar was -- hot -- can easily be made part of on topic posting here. I did mention something I'd thought you'd miss. Most do. I used the term, specifically -- death lust -- which, of course? or not of course? is a theme in the Narrative. How is this relevant to ontopic Bilbo treachery. The dire lust of which I speak is tacit in most of Tolkien's psychosexual assumptions as he cast it through the narrative. To add to the death lust theory--Sauron was full of it(angry people are full of it too). No doubt he imbued it in the Ring. The same Ring in the Hobbit, not 'the Ring', but 'the Ring', or even 'the Ring' if you like.

It's a rather interesting topic, of itself. 'Seduction' although he typically stays clear of sexual implications, is not separate or dissociable--entirely--

About lies and Rings - psychosexuality and--lying--in all its forms are conjoined.

So, I look forwards to see where your -- dependencies or attachments -- reside in where you place your particular points to inspire? posters to respond to you.

PS I wonder what kind of regalry and clothing the vanities of Annatar included to entice the Noldor. Celebrimbor, who had such trouble courting -- Galadriel -- seemed rather taken by Annatar.......

*dries eyes after laughing doubled over* - that was a fun post to write, which is what I come to these boards for. Laughter. Certainly not the stupidity of being excessively serious and losing the --fun-- of posting.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I do not believe I said this and am not debating it. I am merely saying that Professor Tolkien did not think the Ring was evil when he wrote The Hobbit.

I have given you quotes from The Return of the Shadow to show that he only came up with these ideas later. They may have been a short time later, but they were later.

I don't know what else to say. Remarks about being "embarrassed for" me are not appreciated. I have given you quotes from The Return of the Shadow and The Treason of Isengard to prove my point and you seem to have simply ignored them. In these posts you repeatedly claim that I haven't given you evidence when I have!

I also note that you have not provided evidence to support your claim that Professor Tolkien did already have these things in mind, which seems to make it rather moot.

And no I don't think Sauron had some kind of liaison with any of the Gwaith-i-Mírdain. I do not perceive "Annatar" as a sexually attractive figure, although I realise many do; personally I believe that his "fairness" was an impression of supreme majesty, wisdom and intellect that he gave those who saw him - perhaps excessively so, hence the mistrust this fostered in Gil-galad, Elrond and Galadriel.

A '...short time later...' will conjoin the disparity in arguments. By 1937/8

And as I pointed out to Galadriel. It's--rubbish--to assert that Bilbo wasn't already lying soon after procuring the ring. He lied about how he got it. Lies -- implicated with the Arkenstone thing as well.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

My point is, again, what's your point.

Oh nothing whatsoever. See, I was too busy daydreaming about Annatar's hot looks to actually explain myself on a thread about Bilbo's thoughts and motivations. So terribly sorry to inconvenience you.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Its rubbish, don't you think to assert that Bilbo -- didn't -- lie to Gandalf about how he procured the ring?

Please provide a link to a post in this thread where someone makes the assertion that Bilbo did not lie to Gandalf and the Dwarves about the Ring. A specific quote would be even better. Until you do so, this is a moot argument.

And while you're at it - maybe stop putting words into people's mouths. Your posts repeatedly imply that posters have said or asserted certain things that they clearly did not. It doesn't add to the strength of your arguments.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Don't you think, such --rubbish-- coming out of the Hobbit's mouth would mean that it was --rubbish-- to assert that the Ring wasn't doing it's zshoo zshoo hahaha (as in I am literally crying with laughter at this point) by the time Bilbo planted it on his lil-ole Hobbity-finger.

It's so funny that I can barely contain myself. Because see, the fact that the Ring may have had influence over Bilbo already, doesn't make it the prime motivator in Bilbo's choice to give the Arkenstone away - for no benefit to himself whatsoever, and at great risk to his friendships and even his well-being. And see, stating the same thing over and over again doesn't spark a desire in me to agree with what you're saying. A logical explanation might. In what way exactly did the Ring push Bilbo to give away the Arkenstone? What benefit would that give to the Ring? To Bilbo? What other possible motivations may augment this effect of conflict with it? I will gladly read the elaboration of your point of view if you link your statements with a logical thought progression.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

A topic on whether or not Annatar was -- hot -- can easily be made part of on topic posting here. I did mention something I'd thought you'd miss. Most do. I used the term, specifically -- death lust -- which, of course? or not of course? is a theme in the Narrative. How is this relevant to ontopic Bilbo treachery. The dire lust of which I speak is tacit in most of Tolkien's psychosexual assumptions as he cast it through the narrative. To add to the death lust theory--Sauron was full of it(angry people are full of it too). No doubt he imbued it in the Ring. The same Ring in the Hobbit, not 'the Ring', but 'the Ring', or even 'the Ring' if you like.

It's a rather interesting topic, of itself. 'Seduction' although he typically stays clear of sexual implications, is not separate or dissociable--entirely--

About lies and Rings - psychosexuality and--lying--in all its forms are conjoined.

That is such an interesting topic. So good of you to actually tangentially link it to the context of this thread.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

*dries eyes after laughing doubled over* - that was a fun post to write, which is what I come to these boards for. Laughter. Certainly not the stupidity of being excessively serious and losing the --fun-- of posting.

Well that explains a lot.

[Ivriniel]

Please provide a link to a post in this thread where someone makes the assertion that Bilbo did not lie to Gandalf and the Dwarves about the Ring. A specific quote would be even better. Until you do so, this is a moot argument.

And while you're at it - maybe stop putting words into people's mouths. Your posts repeatedly imply that posters have said or asserted certain things that they clearly did not. It doesn't add to the strength of your arguments.

There's a lot of 'words going into people's mouths' around here. Though, I've never known a--red blooded human being with flesh and bone--to not be likewise inclined. It's just words, Galadriel. That's all they are. Nothing sinister, or anything worthy of narcissistic inflammations. Just words. At my age, words sometimes grow very--wearying--and as my dear cousin said (who I love to bits) "I don't know what the bother is, words are just approximations".

About the 'lying thing'. You remember, don't ya? You know, when Bilbo was rabbiting on about 'finding it' and also avoiding disclosing owning it. There were lies of commission and of omission riddling (pardon the pun) Bilbo's behaviour.....(I'm weary. Must I find exact quotes so you can throw another Molotov Cocktail at your screen) hahaha

Ash Bilbo Durbataluk
Ash Bilbo Gimbatul
Ash Bilbo Thrakataluk
Agh Burzum ishi Krimpatul

hahahahahahahahahahah

You're being cheeky about 'the interesting topic' aren't you. I'm not quite sure how to lead a thread at these boards on psychosexuality - it could get problematic

"Was Annatar or Aragorn Hotter?" hahahahaha

"Did Galadriel's spurning of Celebrimbor stir death lust and make him more amenable to Annatar's clothing and looks?"

hahahahaha

[Ivriniel]

btw - are you one of those people that misuses 'moot' or not? I'm reading ur words with a look of 'hmmm I think she's one of 'those' who do'.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

...the fact that the Ring may have had influence over Bilbo already, doesn't make it the prime motivator in Bilbo's choice to give the Arkenstone away - for no benefit to himself whatsoever, and at great risk to his friendships and even his well-being.

For me, that's a crucial point in an argument against the Ring being a factor in Bilbo's dealings with the Arkenstone.

Doing what he did was really a selfless, dangerous act, and he handed the Arkenstone over to Bard with a "glance of longing", true, but no real problem. Even if he'd wanted the stone for himself, how would that have been to the benefit of the Ring?

I see Bilbo's mild lust for the stone as an artifact of his time with the Dwarves, and his limited contact with Smaug (touch of dragon-sickness, maybe).

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

For me, that's a crucial point in an argument against the Ring being a factor in Bilbo's dealings with the Arkenstone.

Doing what he did was really a selfless, dangerous act, and he handed the Arkenstone over to Bard with a "glance of longing", true, but no real problem. Even if he'd wanted the stone for himself, how would that have been to the benefit of the Ring?

I see Bilbo's mild lust for the stone as an artifact of his time with the Dwarves, and his limited contact with Smaug (touch of dragon-sickness, maybe).

It's a double-true for me to this post. It was paradoxically selfless, and I have to see some of the 'evil-lust' theme in the behaviour too.

In a third 'prong' of argument:

Whilst also sustaining the views upstream about it being dishonest, awkward and violation of fidelity to the Dwarves in the breach of trust sense. Strangely selfless to damage trust, is the new perspective emerging as I read on. Interesting comment Inziladun

[Ivriniel]

@Zigur

I requested stuff, not stuff that reifies what you already wrote, but stuff this way:

....I'd like to see you ground your point in some materials, please, especially since you asserted that The Ring doesn't act immediately, and that The Ring was not part of Prof's thinking/notes at Hobbit time.

You asserted that Rings were Un-ringy in the Hobbit and that Unringy Rings were not really Rings--as in LotR Rings, even though Tolkien was writing about LotRINGS as a title pretty much as the Hobbit was hitting the shelves. (I haven't yet reached the max-level of chaos in responding that usually has Ungoliant in my method. If you see Ungoliant appearing it'll be because the concession about what was explicitly stated in the Hobbit is not embedded in a response.

Informed consent. Ungoliants come out when I get hysterical and laugh lot

Add in it's hard to keep an un-Ringy argument about The Hobbit-Rings when we factor in Silmarillion notes from 1927. Sauron, "hot bad boi" was around in Tolkien's 'lust, greed, seductions, Rings of Fire' (durbataluk) in Morgothian-offshoots for quite some time.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Ivriniel, I'm not sure where you're getting these ideas, but it's pretty clear that you haven't read HME, or at least the relevant volumes. Zigur is entirely correct- the notion of the Rings of Power hadn't yet been conceived when The Hobbit was written, or even when the earliest chapters of the Lord of the Rings were written-- Tolkien at first had little idea why Bilbo -> Bingo was setting out at all!

As for Sauron: he first appears (originally under the name Thu) in the Lay of Leithian, written in the late 1920s, but only in the context of Beren and Luthien, the "sub-boss" of the story responsible for Barahir's death and who has to be overcome on the Isle of Werewolves. He is there depicted as a master of phantoms, illusions, deceits and shape-shifting.... but nary a ring in sight.

The Hobbit, to the best estimation of John Rateliff (who has studied the manuscripts more extensively than anyone alive) was written between 1929 and 32, probably 1930-31. The old theory printed in Carpenter that the final chapters weren't written down until 1936 is probably erroneous, but even if it were correct it wouldn't change the fact that Tolkien didn't write Word One of LR until after The Hobbit was in print and selling well enough that Unwins wanted a sequel- specifically, 19 December 1937 (with no Ring or Sauron). The idea of Rings of Power didn't crop up until late February or March 1938, in the course of writing the chapter "Three's Company" ("The Shadow of the Past" had yet to be written or conceived)- where Tolkien, on the page, altered a description of Gandalf's arrival on horseback into the first Black Rider and thus found the drive-spring of his heretofore aimless sequel.

In 1931 there were no Ages after the First; in 1936 'The Lost Road' brought about the first version of the Fall of Numenor where indeed Sauron is the villain, but entirely Ring-less; and in The Hobbit and the beginning drafts of the LR there isn't the faintest suggestion that Bilbo's ring has any connection to him

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Ivriniel, I'm not sure where you're getting these ideas, but it's pretty clear that you haven't read HME, or at least the relevant volumes. Zigur is entirely correct- the notion of the Rings of Power hadn't yet been conceived when The Hobbit was written, or even when the earliest chapters of the Lord of the Rings were written-- Tolkien at first had little idea why Bilbo -> Bingo was setting out at all!

As for Sauron: he first appears (originally under the name Thu) in the Lay of Leithian, written in the late 1920s, but only in the context of Beren and Luthien, the "sub-boss" of the story responsible for Barahir's death and who has to be overcome on the Isle of Werewolves. He is there depicted as a master of phantoms, illusions, deceits and shape-shifting.... but nary a ring in sight.

The Hobbit, to the best estimation of John Rateliff (who has studied the manuscripts more extensively than anyone alive) was written between 1929 and 32, probably 1930-31. The old theory printed in Carpenter that the final chapters weren't written down until 1936 is probably erroneous, but even if it were correct it wouldn't change the fact that Tolkien didn't write Word One of LR until after The Hobbit was in print and selling well enough that Unwins wanted a sequel- specifically, 19 December 1937 (with no Ring or Sauron). The idea of Rings of Power didn't crop up until late February or March 1938, in the course of writing the chapter "Three's Company" ("The Shadow of the Past" had yet to be written or conceived)- where Tolkien, on the page, altered a description of Gandalf's arrival on horseback into the first Black Rider and thus found the drive-spring of his heretofore aimless sequel.

In 1931 there were no Ages after the First; in 1936 'The Lost Road' brought about the first version of the Fall of Numenor where indeed Sauron is the villain, but entirely Ring-less; and in The Hobbit and the beginning drafts of the LR there isn't the faintest suggestion that Bilbo's ring has any connection to him

William, ur comment seems to imply that a poster can only comment if they have the authority to. By drawing upon, only, and singularly ideas in tomes you aspire to, value or respect.

I do not have any problem with your referencing or materials. what I do post, however, is what I post.

Please have a look at the materials, and see -- if you like -- what perhaps would help me to steer you in my ideas, by asking a question about a concept, or directing my attention to where it is that you would like it to be.

Thank you and kind regards

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

William, ur comment seems to imply that a poster can only comment if they have the authority to. By drawing upon, only, and singularly ideas in tomes you aspire to, value or respect.

I do not have any problem with your referencing or materials. what I do post, however, is what I post.

Please have a look at the materials, and see -- if you like -- what perhaps would help me to steer you in my ideas, by asking a question about a concept, or directing my attention to where it is that you would like it to be.

Thank you and kind regards

I don't think William implied that only people with authority should comment; however, he is completely correct in what he is saying and offers research to back it up. That is how debates are won.

Simply put, the One Ring of The Lord of the Rings was not originally the ring Bilbo bore in The Hobbit, and the idea by Tolkien to incorporate that plot point into the story came well after the original publication of The Hobbit. Please reread William's post for the particulars.

But one doesn't even need to go to outlandish lengths and provide copious amounts of documentation to know this. All one has to do is read the first edition of The Hobbit to know that, after the riddle game, Gollum simply hands the magic ring to Bilbo as a reward for winning. This, of course, would not be physically possible for Gollum if it were the malignant One Ring he had held for centuries. Tolkien did not change that aspect of the story until he rewrote The Hobbit to align with the plot of Lord of the Rings.

If you have no conclusive citations that state otherwise, the debate is over, nothing more to see here, move on.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I don't think William implied that only people with authority should comment; however, he is completely correct in what he is saying and offers research to back it up. That is how debates are won.

Simply put, the One Ring of The Lord of the Rings was not originally the ring Bilbo bore in The Hobbit, and the idea by Tolkien to incorporate that plot point into the story came well after the original publication of The Hobbit. Please reread William's post for the particulars.

But one doesn't even need to go to outlandish lengths and provide copious amounts of documentation to know this. All one has to do is read the first edition of The Hobbit to know that, after the riddle game, Gollum simply hands the magic ring to Bilbo as a reward for winning. This, of course, would not be physically possible for Gollum if it were the malignant One Ring he had held for centuries. Tolkien did not change that aspect of the story until he rewrote The Hobbit to align with the plot of Lord of the Rings.

If you have no conclusive citations that state otherwise, the debate is over, nothing more to see here, move on.

Actually, this post presumes authority in quite a different way. It presumes that the extant texts, published as is, do not have citations of worth.

I think you'll find materials in post with -- references -- not direct citations to position an argument. I don't think there is a singular capacity for anyone to presume correctness on any given topic

Certainly not on this topic, where, it is quite clear that the author's materials evolved as he wrote, in such a liquid fashion that pinning down a simple topic with a 'one size fits all' argument speaks more to the need of the poster, rather than the reality.

I'm afraid that after about 30 years of consideration to canon and other material I've grown increasingly diverse in sense of options for argument. Which is why I'm suspicious of posts that presume 'correctness'. It's more about a need of order in one's mind and to slot things away in a known set of parameters.

There's no such thing in Tolkien's works. He was evolving ideas to the day he died.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Actually, this post presumes authority in quite a different way. It presumes that the extant texts, published as is, do not have citations of worth.

I think you'll find materials in post with -- references -- not direct citations to position an argument. I don't think there is a singular capacity for anyone to presume correctness on any given topic

Certainly not on this topic, where, it is quite clear that the author's materials evolved as he wrote, in such a liquid fashion that pinning down a simple topic with a 'one size fits all' argument speaks more to the need of the poster, rather than the reality.

I'm afraid that after about 30 years of consideration to canon and other material I've grown increasingly diverse in sense of options for argument. Which is why I'm suspicious of posts that presume 'correctness'. It's more about a need of order in one's mind and to slot things away in a known set of parameters.

There's no such thing in Tolkien's works. He was evolving ideas to the day he died.

Once again, your strained supposition does not include direct citation or any documentation to support your points, and rather than trying to defend your untenable position you've wasted a few paragraphs worrying about other posters' tone, and rambling about Tolkien's fluidity. Tolkien was indeed fluid, but in this case we know where, why and when he changed the story.

Given the information William already provided regarding how and when Tolkien published material regarding the One Ring, coupled with the fact that Tolkien had to dramatically change aspects of The Hobbit after the first edition to align with the new malignancy of the Ring, leaves you with nothing but obstinacy in maintaining your position.

I have a first edition of The Hobbit. Have you read it? Gollum is not nearly the miserable, despicable fellow he is in revised editions. As I stated previously, Gollum has every intention of giving his "present" to Bilbo when he wins the riddle game. Gollum even leads Bilbo out of the tunnel -- a thing wholly inexplicable if Tolkien considers the magic ring to be the One Ring. Tolkien had to change the very nature of Gollum, as he had with the Ring, in order to make the old story fit the "sequel". Gollum even apologizes when he discovers he lost the ring (in Bilbo's possession), which would be quite ridiculous if Tolkien had considered the corrosive effects of the One Ring prior to writing LotR:

I don't know how many times Gollum begged Bilbo's pardon. He kept on saying: "We are ssorry; we didn't mean to cheat, we meant to give it our only only pressent, if it won the competition." He even offered to catch Bilbo some nice juicy fish to eat as a consolation.

Not only does he change Gollum, but Bilbo is essentially changed. Bilbo goes from winning the magic ring outright, and thereby possessing it with full entitlement, to keeping it by stealth, as the One Ring was no longer a stake in the riddle game, and, as rewritten, the murderous Gollum would never relinquish or offer up his Precious, the One Ring that warped and tortured him for centuries.

Your argument does not logically follow the sequence of events, nor does it take into account the actual revisions required to make the changes necessary for The Hobbit to align with LotR as noted by Christopher Tolkien in "The Return of the Shadow" (History of Middle-earth VI), or in the two-volume The History of The Hobbit by John Rateliff.

Any further tedious exposition without something more than your opinion will be ignored.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Once again, your strained supposition does not include direct citation or any documentation to support your points, and rather than trying to defend your untenable position you've wasted a few paragraphs worrying about other posters' tone, and rambling about Tolkien's fluidity. Tolkien was indeed fluid, but in this case we know where, why and when he changed the story.

so what. what's ur point? what, that 30 reads of the mythology doesn't leave an impression or capacity to comment.

Please refrain. Have a look upstream. If you want me to hunt down citations, I will, but first of all, have a look at the arguments I've presented please, then ask for something after that.

Thanx

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

so what. what's ur point? what, that 30 reads of the mythology doesn't leave an impression or capacity to comment.

Please refrain. Have a look upstream. If you want me to hunt down citations, I will, but first of all, have a look at the arguments I've presented please, then ask for something after that.

Thanx

What's my point? You are wrong, and I say so without hesitation.

Your "30 reads" evidently didn't encompass C. Tolkien's History of Middle-earth or John Rateliff's The History of The Hobbit, where J.R.R. Tolkien's writings and revisions are given chronological perspective in a scholarly context. You can give the books another "30 reads" and it will not avail you when it comes to the context and chronology of why and when Tolkien wrote what he did. You can guess, you can surmise, but when presented with copious documentation that proves otherwise, it's time to pack in your guesses and admit you are wrong.

Oh, and I did paddle the turgid straits and navigated the frothy rapids upstream and found nothing you stated was germane to the discussion from a factual basis. Nothing you said was more than opinion devoid of background or research.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

What's my point? You are wrong, and I say so without hesitation.

Your "30 reads" evidently didn't encompass C. Tolkien's History of Middle-earth or John Rateliff's The History of The Hobbit, where J.R.R. Tolkien's writings and revisions are given chronological perspective in a scholarly context. You can give the books another "30 reads" and it will not avail you when it comes to the context and chronology of why and when Tolkien wrote what he did. You can guess, you can surmise, but when presented with copious documentation that proves otherwise, it's time to pack in your guesses and admit you are wrong.

Oh, and I did paddle the turgid straits and navigated the frothy rapids upstream and found nothing you stated was germane to the discussion from a factual basis. Nothing you said was more than opinion devoid of background or research.

I was looking forwards to your response. I'm grinning. I never fail to be 'impressed' by variations in ......Shelob.....um, now the grin's growing into an....hm...Yrch-ish grin, nah, um, more just a fun grin as I type and speak out loud my response.

You see.....Shelob was ....um....Ung......no, I must refrain. Ungoliant is reserved for 'emergencies'. I don't think we're at that point yet. I think we're at the point where the point is that point of the prior poster...hahahaha. really just needs to be ...as full of snipes as ...um....hahahaha is 'polite', yet as full of gripes as is 'impolite' and as...Galadriel was UNfriends forever with, wasn't it Feanor....

So, that's about as much as needs to be added to the point about your point that no prior point matters to any degree of point, except to be pointy, perhaps barbed hahaha, but no extra POINT to the points.

enjoy - I'm laughing - are we at Ungoliant yet?

[Ivriniel]

@Morthogon, or -oron, on something

and - there's textual analysis provided. Indications of dates of published texts I've provided, in a timeline pre-WWII, together with commentary about The Silmarillian's earlier notes (1927 I think he began. Forgive me if I just don't give a rat's rear end about the exact date - because it's not that important really, when we look on the TV and see the world around us. Try to enjoy urself and have some fun). In any case, then there was a concession made, to another poster a '36' '37' (or something about that range hahaha), betWIXT the Hobbit and LotR.

And those additions part of a larger schema of 'vibe-ish' (I'm actually laughing as I type) analysis. And my closing point.

The prof T was making addendums to his narratives to the day he died. There's no such thing as 'he wrote it on the second minute of the 3rd day of nineteen hundred and 28 ergo - canonised forever as 'the truth, the proof and the justification to get.....snipy.... about dates). As we know of the materials, each chapter he wrote forwards, he was back-revising as well.

So, about 'treacheries' Hobbits and LotR's, I believe the central point being made has been made. We've all made the point we've made. The made points are made to be made and made. Not UNmade - and that's a joke about what JRRT used to do as a linguist.

He UN-ed a lot of things, and sometimes it was just very funny. As in 'verily so', and UNlight, UNfriend, UNmake - three examples. hahaha, wait, omg, I wandered into new turf - I wonder why

Cheers

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

I was looking forwards to your response. I'm grinning. I never fail to be 'impressed' by variations in ......Shelob.....um, now the grin's growing into an....hm...Yrch-ish grin, nah, um, more just a fun grin as I type and speak out loud my response.

You see.....Shelob was ....um....Ung......no, I must refrain. Ungoliant is reserved for 'emergencies'. I don't think we're at that point yet. I think we're at the point where the point is that point of the prior poster...hahahaha. really just needs to be ...as full of snipes as ...um....hahahaha is 'polite', yet as full of gripes as is 'impolite' and as...Galadriel was UNfriends forever with, wasn't it Feanor....

So, that's about as much as needs to be added to the point about your point that no prior point matters to any degree of point, except to be pointy, perhaps barbed hahaha, but no extra POINT to the points.

enjoy - I'm laughing - are we at Ungoliant yet?

You may well think the gibberish you are typing is cute or witty, but it is just gibberish. You have often resorted to gibberish in this thread when another poster proves a point through research. It must be some sort of psychologically regressive fallback. Like when a child sucks its thumb.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

The prof T was making addendums to his narratives to the day he died. There's no such thing as 'he wrote it on the second minute of the 3rd day of nineteen hundred and 28 ergo - canonised forever as 'the truth, the proof and the justification to get.....snipy.... about dates). As we know of the materials, each chapter he wrote forwards, he was back-revising as well.

So, about 'treacheries' Hobbits and LotR's, I believe the central point being made has been made. We've all made the point we've made. The made points are made to be made and made. Not UNmade - and that's a joke about what JRRT used to do as a linguist.

We are all aware Tolkien made changes to his stories. He was an inveterate tinkerer. However, he was not writing about Hobbits in 1918, he was not referring to Sauron as Thû in 1965, and the idea of the corruptive One Ring became a plot point while he was writing Lord of the Rings, after The Hobbit was published and selling. In fact, the very addendums you rabbit on about occurred with The Hobbit -- it had to be revised to meet the ideas created in the new book, the idea of the One Ring had to be established through Gollum, because it wasn't there before.

Because the One Ring wasn't there before, because it was a new idea (writers sometimes get them). Like Aragorn wasn't there before. Or Théoden. Or the Second Age. Or Primula Brandybuck. Or the Nazgul.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

You may well think the gibberish you are typing is cute or witty, but it is just gibberish. You have often resorted to gibberish in this thread when another poster proves a point through research. It must be some sort of psychologically regressive fallback. Like when a child sucks its thumb.



We are all aware Tolkien made changes to his stories. He was an inveterate tinkerer. However, he was not writing about Hobbits in 1918, he was not referring to Sauron as Thû in 1965, and the idea of the corruptive One Ring became a plot point while he was writing Lord of the Rings, after The Hobbit was published and selling. In fact, the very addendums you rabbit on about occurred with The Hobbit -- it had to be revised to meet the ideas created in the new book, the idea of the One Ring had to be established through Gollum, because it wasn't there before.

Because the One Ring wasn't there before, because it was a new idea (writers sometimes get them). Like Aragorn wasn't there before. Or Théoden. Or the Second Age. Or Primula Brandybuck. Or the Nazgul.

Listen, you've made ur point, so let's move on. Personalised language is == boring -- 'jibberish see, jibberish do, we jibberish - oo oo oo'.

Thanx for ur ...... post - We're getting closer to Ungoliant

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Listen, you've made ur point, so let's move on. Personalised language is == boring -- 'jibberish see, jibberish do, we jibberish - oo oo oo'.

Thanx for ur ...... post - We're getting closer to Ungoliant

Where exactly are you moving on to?

As far as your odd mention of "getting closer to Ungoliant" (a mantra repeated over and over in this thread), it seems like some sort of veiled threat. Have at it. I am unconcerned.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Where exactly are you moving on to?

As far as your odd mention of "getting closer to Ungoliant" repeated over and over in this thread like some mantra, it seems like some sort of veiled threat. Have at it. I am unconcerned.

last say it-is morthagon. let's just move on and have fun. I'm not really very interested in furthering points made on the thread. It's all been said before. It's all been covered. It's very human to think 'I'm right' and it's all very tiring.

I'd rather have some fun and make a lighter conversation on topics.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

I'd rather have some fun and make a lighter conversation on topics.

May I suggest the Middle Earth Mirth forum?

[Pitchwife]

I'm feeling a little contrary today, so I'd like to stir the pot of this thread once more and argue that the fact that Tolkien didn't, at the time of writing The Hobbit, intend the ring to have an evil influence on Bilbo, though undeniably true, is neither here nor there.

Why? Because the change in role and importance the ring underwent between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, becoming The One Ring, is retroactive within the fictional universe. Once the ring 'turned out' to be the One Ring it always was the One Ring, and the story in the First Edition where Gollum was ready to give Bilbo the ring willingly becomes a figment of Bilbo's desire to make himself look better and affirm his right to the ring.

It's therefore perfectly legit in my opinion to speculate about the Ring influencing Bilbo's taking the Arkenstone, and even more his failure to report his find to the Dwarves - though definitely not the use he made of it, where his better hobbit nature came through. I mean, I totally could see Frodo wondering about that, re-reading Bilbo's book after his return from Mordor. Whatever the Ring's part in the affair, it's influence on Bilbo would still have been very subtle and tenuous at the time, which may be why Tolkien felt no need to elaborate on it in his revisions.

Once again, it's clear and has been amply demonstrated that this isn't what Tolkien intended at the time of writing TH. Whether this is a problem depends on whether you hold auctorial intention to be more important than a text's power to acquire and generate new meanings through its history.

[Ivriniel]

@MothAgon-or-on-ronroon

Except, when it's friendly, it's fun again, so there's more to say Nothing I'm adding is 'new', but I do like saying hello and chit chat, when it's time to.

@Pitchwife

Hello Pitchwife good to see you. Interesting comments, and enjoyable reading. I hope you've been well. I appreciate your position and it's always fun to hear your thoughts.

The text is quite distinct, isn't it, in its 'tonal' emphasis and there was a startling 'jump' in 'tempo' of the darker themes attributable to the Ring in the LotR. I've, many times, reread the books to see what 'hints' Tolkien had in the Hobbit about the Ring's malevolence. I've found some. They're upstream, although, of themselves they are not really conclusive one way or the other (about the topic here, ie 'how much did the Ring evolve from its The Hobbit-ish starting point'). For example, was it significant or not how Gandalf ticked off or studied Bilbo closely about indications of lies of omission/commission in Bilbo's demeanour? (I can find the exact quote if it's needed. I'm guessing most of us already know it?)

And, the whole notion of invisibility, in some ways, did leave a sense of 'wrong' (as The Land kind of 'wrongness') in a very lasting impression in me that is. That sense of 'not quite right to wander about invisibly, without ur pals knowing', that has not really left me in three decades. What do you think, though?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

....Why? Because the change in role and importance the ring underwent between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, becoming The One Ring, is retroactive within the fictional universe. Once the ring 'turned out' to be the One Ring it always was the One Ring, and the story in the First Edition where Gollum was ready to give Bilbo the ring willingly becomes a figment of Bilbo's desire to make himself look better and affirm his right to the ring....

Once again, it's clear and has been amply demonstrated that this isn't what Tolkien intended at the time of writing TH. Whether this is a problem depends on whether you hold auctorial intention to be more important than a text's power to acquire and generate new meanings through its history.

You have hit on what made Tolkien the writer he was. Tolkien was the one of the greatest synthesizers the literary world has ever known. He wrote The Hobbit showing an inkling of distant previous eras, and these eras were already well-developed in his 1st Age tales and lays which would eventually be made into The Silmarillion. The antecedent Silmarillion works synthesized Biblical, Welsh, Greek and Finnish works or languages, just as The Hobbit borrowed from Beowulf and the Voluspa.

So what does Tolkien do after publishing The Hobbit? In writing a sequel, he magnifies the tale of Bilbo Baggins and the other characters. Gandalf goes from pitching pinecones to defeating a Balrog. Cozy Erebor becomes the decrepit but magnificent Khazad-dum. The dispossessed Bard with the black arrow becomes the dispossessed Aragorn with shards and a lineage that predates the Age. Oh, and a magic ring that grants invisibility becomes the One Ring, the manifestation of all evil, created by an eternal foe, Sauron, who was borrowed from the 1st Age, but now was hiding out as a necromancer in Dol Guldur but really has a far greater keep in Mordor. And Gollum become more than just a riddle-spouting side-character, but one of the prime movers of the new book, held in thrall by the Ring, he destroys it and it destroys him.

Tolkien's genius is borrowing and embellishing, In Lord of the Rings he was masterful with the synthesis and the imagination to connect the dots.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

It's therefore perfectly legit in my opinion to speculate about the Ring influencing Bilbo's taking the Arkenstone, and even more his failure to report his find to the Dwarves - though definitely not the use he made of it, where his better hobbit nature came through.

Right, which brings me back to my initial point before the thread got sidetracked. I think that the main act of Bilbo's "treachery" was not taking of the Arkenstone or keeping it secret from the Dwarves. The betrayal of trust really came in when Bilbo gave the stone away to an outsider - moreover, on outsider on the opposite side of the friendship line. And Bilbo knew that no amount of legal twists and loops can justify the dishonesty of his act at this point. And yet this act - the biggest breaking of trust - was quite clearly not something the Ring would have had a hand in.

The way you present your argument does make sense, though - it is possible that the Ring took Bilbo's own curiosity and adventurousness and a touch of greed and pulled them in just the right direction. However, I still would not agree to a "the Ring made me do it!" argument. I think all the major components were already present in Bilbo, and if the Ring had any influence at all, it was more to give him a push in the right direction.

As for telling about the Arkenstone to the Dwarves - I think that was a wise move more than anything. Given how well Bilbo knows them by now, and how riled up and unnecessarily demanding - even offensive - they can get, I don't think he would have told them about the Arkenstone even if he hadn't taken it. And if I had the stone, last thing I would do is give it to them in that state. We see Bilbo's conscience winning over his initial impulsive greed and secrecy, but he really has no way to make it right; I feel like even if he would accept the consequences of the Dwarves' wrath at himself (which he did in the end), he would also at this point foresee that their emotions sometimes take them places, and unrelated things become affected. Their reasoning isn't always fair and their decisions would be dangerous to themselves and to the people lining up at the base of the Mountain as well.

It's true I'm not a fan of arguments by timeline, but it's also true that we have to accept some inconsistency between The Hobbit and LOTR for that reason. That doesn't mean we can't bring in elements of one book into the other, as you say, but just means that we have to do so with an additional grain of salt and not with utmost conviction of their validity.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Hello Pitchwife good to see you.

Hi, Ivriniel! A fine mess you've made of this thread, if I may say so; but I think we've cleared it up by now. At the very least your ideas have the merit of being fresh and unorthodox.

Unlikemost readers, I first read The Hobbit after The Lord of the Rings, so it would be natural for my perception to be somewhat coloured by the later book. Still I didn't find much of LotR's darker tones and themes in it, except in the character of Gollum (who was already poor Sméagol to me) and in the Battle of Five Armies which echoed (or rather foreshadowed) the great battles of Helm's Deep and the Pelennor.

The invisibility thing in itself didn't strike me as particularly wrong - it's a common fairytale trope, and the scenes in which Bilbo uses the ring are IMO written totally different from those where Frodo uses it in LotR, a lot lighter and largely devoid of the ominous overtones we find there. We don't get that sense of him passing into another world or dimension.

What did strike me as wrong in a Gollumish sense was Bilbo's secrecy about the ring, never mentioning it to his friends until he's practically forced to. And this is, of course, where Gandalf's sideway glance comes into play, which you've been mentioning:

Originally Posted by The Hobbit Ch. 6, Out of the Frying Pan Into the Fire

The dwarves looked at him with quite a new respect, when he talked about dodging guards, jumping over Gollum, and squeezing through, as if it was not very difficult or very alarming.
'What did I tell you?' said Gandalf laughing. 'Mr. Baggins has more about him than you guess.' He gave Bilbo a queer look from under his bushy eyebrows, as he said this, and the hobbit wondered if he guessed at the part of his tale that he had left out.

OIbviously Gandalf guessed that Bilbo hadn't performed all these feats unaided but was hiding something; and he may have pondered that such secrecy wasn't quite in character for the hobbit. Looking back from LotR, it may have been here that Gandalf first got an inkling that all wasn't right with Bilbo after his encounter with Gollum.

On the other hand, it's hardly reprehensible that Bilbo wanted to make himself look daring and dashing in the eyes of the Dwarves after having been belittled and denigrated by them for most of the journey so far, and the Ring, we could say, used and maybe amplified this innocent desire in its own desire to remain hidden from such as Gandalf. But we have to consider that Bilbo only used the Ring for the benefit of his companions, much unlike Gollum, who had a long headstart on his path into evil even when he first found it.

(By the way, since you speak of a "The Land kind of wrongness", I wonder: did you in your reading history come from Tolkien to Donaldson or vice versa? You sometimes seem to see Tolkien's characters through a Donaldsonian lens which, in my opinion, tends to distort them, amplifying darkness and wrongness at the expense of other aspects. Same in your Frodo thread.)

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I think that the main act of Bilbo's "treachery" was not taking of the Arkenstone or keeping it secret from the Dwarves. The betrayal of trust really came in when Bilbo gave the stone away to an outsider - moreover, on outsider on the opposite side of the friendship line. And Bilbo knew that no amount of legal twists and loops can justify the dishonesty of his act at this point. And yet this act - the biggest breaking of trust - was quite clearly not something the Ring would have had a hand in.

Right. His greatest betrayal was also his most unselfish and, in its outcome, an act of great goodness and wisdom. Totally un-Ringy.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

it is possible that the Ring took Bilbo's own curiosity and adventurousness and a touch of greed and pulled them in just the right direction. However, I still would not agree to a "the Ring made me do it!" argument. I think all the major components were already present in Bilbo, and if the Ring had any influence at all, it was more to give him a push in the right direction

No, the Ring didn't make him do it, it may just have added a pinch of "Ooh, shiny! We wants it!" to what was already there. If there were no chinks in our characters to begin with, the Ring would have nothing to work with. But you're right, he would have taken it anyway - the text even says so, now I reread it:

Originally Posted by The Hobbit Ch.3, Not at Home

Suddenly Bilbo's arm went towards it drawn by its enchantment.

My emphasis: its enchantment, i.e. the Arkenstone's own. No need for the Ring. So much for thinking I had a case.

As for telling or not telling the Dwarves, I think if he had presented to Thorin "The Arkenstone, discovered for you by your faithful servant Bilbo Baggins, esq., master burglar" they might have carried him around on their hands - or not. You make some very cogent points about their mental state at the time. In any case the need for a grain of salt when making retrospective interpretations has just been demonstrated.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

So what does Tolkien do after publishing The Hobbit? In writing a sequel, he magnifies the tale of Bilbo Baggins and the other characters.

Exactly. Looking back from LotR, The Hobbit isn't so much a prequel as a miniature model, like a rehearsal acted out in a sandbox of much smaller scale and with much smaller stakes.

[Ivriniel]

(By the way, since you speak of a "The Land kind of wrongness", I wonder: did you in your reading history come from Tolkien to Donaldson or vice versa?

I read Donaldsonian stuff second. (I thought Lord Foul was 'hotter' than Sauron - hahahaha' at least the former had a corporeal body, or could choose one. And Sauron's 'hot burning eye' hahahaha although literally perhaps 'hot' wasn't very 'hot' hahahaha)[/quote]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Hi, Ivriniel! A fine mess you've made of this thread, if I may say so; but I think we've cleared it up by now. At the very least your ideas have the merit of being fresh and unorthodox.

Hi Pitchwife. Unorthodoxy was not at all in any part intended,, but I think ur referring to the Ungoliant/Shelob diversion prose? Still, that's posting. Anonymised text seems to enable lower manners thresholds, I've found over time and I try to make light when it gets so serious it's just not fun anymore.

The invisibility thing in itself didn't strike me as particularly wrong - it's a common fairytale trope, and the scenes in which Bilbo uses the ring are IMO written totally different from those where Frodo uses it in LotR, a lot lighter and largely devoid of the ominous overtones we find there. We don't get that sense of him passing into another world or dimension.

Yes, invisibility is common in fairytales though it's in horror stories a lot as well. I was always intrigued, while some part of me baulked at the Ring's invisibility with Bilbo. Even at 15 years of age, which a very long time ago for now, I remember imagining a friend stalking around invisibly (by perspective taking and imagination) and then trying the idea out myself, and then being troubled by the Ring's power.....

What did strike me as wrong in a Gollumish sense was Bilbo's secrecy about the ring, never mentioning it to his friends until he's practically forced to. And this is, of course, where Gandalf's sideway glance comes into play, which you've been mentioning:

I think so - I also seem to recall words of sorts, and I should probably find the citation. From the LotR perspective, Gandalf was versed in Ring Lore, and so the seeing of - even a Lesser Ring - would have opened Gandalf's eye for history up to the Second Age and the Istari's subsequent arrival later on.

But if you presuppose the Hobbit-ish view (the prof hadn't a cogent narrative for the Ring yet), the prior argument isn't as clear.

[Ivriniel]

I read Donaldsonian stuff second. (I thought Lord Foul was 'hotter' than Sauron - hahahaha' at least the former had a corporeal body, or could choose one. And Sauron's 'hot burning eye' hahahaha although literally perhaps 'hot' wasn't very 'hot' hahahaha)

Hi Pitchwife. Unorthodoxy was not at all in any part intended,, but I think ur referring to the Ungoliant/Shelob diversion prose? Still, that's posting. Anonymised text seems to enable lower manners thresholds, I've found over time and I try to make light when it gets so serious it's just not fun anymore.

Yes, invisibility is common in fairytales though it's in horror stories a lot as well. I was always intrigued, while some part of me baulked at the Ring's invisibility with Bilbo. Even at 15 years of age, which a very long time ago for now, I remember imagining a friend stalking around invisibly (by perspective taking and imagination) and then trying the idea out myself, and then being troubled by the Ring's power.....

I think so - I also seem to recall words of sorts, and I should probably find the citation. From the LotR perspective, Gandalf was versed in Ring Lore, and so the seeing of - even a Lesser Ring - would have opened Gandalf's eye for history up to the Second Age and the Istari's subsequent arrival later on.

But if you presuppose the Hobbit-ish view (the prof hadn't a cogent narrative for the Ring yet), the prior argument isn't as clear.

Shall I find some actual quotes?

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

You have hit on what made Tolkien the writer he was. Tolkien was the one of the greatest synthesizers the literary world has ever known. He wrote The Hobbit showing an inkling of distant previous eras, and these eras were already well-developed in his 1st Age tales and lays which would eventually be made into The Silmarillion. The antecedent Silmarillion works synthesized Biblical, Welsh, Greek and Finnish works or languages, just as The Hobbit borrowed from Beowulf and the Voluspa.

So what does Tolkien do after publishing The Hobbit? In writing a sequel, he magnifies the tale of Bilbo Baggins and the other characters. Gandalf goes from pitching pinecones to defeating a Balrog. Cozy Erebor becomes the decrepit but magnificent Khazad-dum. The dispossessed Bard with the black arrow becomes the dispossessed Aragorn with shards and a lineage that predates the Age. Oh, and a magic ring that grants invisibility becomes the One Ring, the manifestation of all evil, created by an eternal foe, Sauron, who was borrowed from the 1st Age, but now was hiding out as a necromancer in Dol Guldur but really has a far greater keep in Mordor. And Gollum become more than just a riddle-spouting side-character, but one of the prime movers of the new book, held in thrall by the Ring, he destroys it and it destroys him.

Tolkien's genius is borrowing and embellishing, In Lord of the Rings he was masterful with the synthesis and the imagination to connect the dots.

This is inaccurate actually.

I will find the supporting materials that direct us to attend to what was a multi-decade literary works, with antecedent (I used to pronounce it wrong, but as my second PhD supervisor and who pointed out, in delight, said to me "you can't say it that way, Stavros, in front of a crowd". Of course, I giggled, because having a sense of humour at 49 helps) notes about The First Age written as early as 1927, I think. I seem to recall (and it has been a long time since I reviewed my records, so forgive me for being diffuse about dates, but I shall find the materials in my library) that Post WWI the Prof began his literary 'synthesis'* in notes.

The materials about the greater literary foundation, mythology, narrative context, and ***Lore*** (have I missed something) were rejected by Allen and Unwin, and he was pressed to write the more palatable variation of his works for a 'one book to hit the shelves' item - the Hobbit. Given such as large well of Lore in the notes, I find it difficult to conclude that the 'dumbed down' Lore in The Hobbit was not 'dumbed down' a-purpose, in order to satisfy publicists. As we all know, editors and publicists are very often guilty of excisions, directives, and pushes upon authors to distort literary purpose.

As was pointed out to me on this thread, it seems LotR was about one year (in formation of title and narrative) behind the ***publication*** of the Hobbit.

I wonder what that means, given my comments here in this post.

[edit]*I do not refer to the works as a synthesis, per se. The term, although adaptable as you've used it, I divert from. Because, (and I know you can't start a sentence with 'because' ordinarily, I'm relaxing language boundaries, for having written 20,000 words a week for the last 20 years, and so, I like mangling language up a bit) synthesis as you've used the term, implies -- perhaps -- conscious attendance to the theological, anthropological and other aspects of our modern world.

He was not a theologian, nor an anthropologist, nor was the professorial title for those.

He was a linguist or English master or etymologist, primarily. As such, if there is a 'synthesis', I would suggest it was 'implicit' or not-grounded in the level of mastery of vocabulary attendant to Professorial status for anthropology, and theology. He fervently denies allegorical reference in his works, as I'm hoping everyone knows. This supposition has been hotly debated, over the decades. It so then seems to me that aggrandising a Loremaster such as the prof on terms applied, Morthoron, {although he was Christian and did, indeed, 'synthesise' tacitly from theology} is a beguiling argumentative style, adapting vocabulary for its own sake and extending boundaries of inference past a reasonable point.

This is only counter argumentation. And I really don't do it so much like this on these Boards.

I prefer Ungoliantisations, Un-Undoings, Re-Unfriendings, And Unlighterisations. They're more fun, really.[/quote]