Bilbo´s treachery [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Alfirin

01-02-2014, 07:44 AM

Another point that might come into confict is thry to define by what standard the 1/14th would be defined; by value, weight,volume etc. By volume or weight of course, Bilbo is perfectly fine. But if by value, which a lot of people would consider the "obvios" defintion especially given terms like "cash on demand"+-9 , then it is possible Thorin would possibly still be on decent legal ground (on the grounds that the Arkenstone was prized so greatly by the Dwarves that they would probably value it higher than the rest of the hoard put together).
Actually, the very terms of that contract sound a little sketchy anyway. You notice Thorin says from the beginning ("1/14 of the profits (if any) not "1/14 of the hoard". Nice an legal, but it actually does give Thorin a sneaky opening. In once sense it works to Bilbo's advantage, since it techically means he is entitled to 1/4 of the Troll hoard as well. But by defining it as "total profits" Thorin actually has ample opportunity, if he feels so inclined to cut Bilbo out entierly. He can claim that the hoard is communal property of the Dwaven kingdom of Erebor, and as such does not actually belong to any of the party personally, so no party profit actually ensued (i.e. bilbo is entiteld to 1/14 of nothing, and always was). Or he could deduct from the shares such expenses as accrued from the trip. For the dwarves these retroactive expenses are largely meaningless, as they are being paid from them to them (so it's really just being re-paid) but Bilbo, who is NOT a member of the Dwaven Kingdom, could easily find his 1/14 eaten up with "expenses". Or at best, Thorin could combine the two and say that the "profits" were the Troll hoard (since that actually WAS property claimed by the party), so Bilbo can have 1/14 of that, (actually since Thorin is probably planning to be busy setting up his kingdom for a while, he might have simply ceded ALL of the Troll hoard to Bilbo as his share (it can't be worth much compared to the whole of Erebor. Plus it is along Bilbo's way back home) and save himself having to send dwarves back to retrieve it.
Actually Thorin could actually claim Bard and Esgaroth owed THEM money, or that the debt was squared. Since Smaug's belly was largely plated with gold and gems from the hoard stuck to it, it could be argued that, when Smaug left the cave he took part of the Dwarves property with him, and that by deciding to shoot Smaug while he was over water (like Bard had a choice!) Bard deprived the Dwarves of a portion of thier property that might otherwise have been retrievalbe (If Smaug had died over land, presumably his body could have been dug up and the gems and gold retrieved) and that any question of remuniration could not be redressed until that portion was retrieved so the whole of the Hoard could be asseses (actually since at that point, Thorin did not know that Bilbo had the Arkenstone, it's a little odd he isn't brooding on that fact. Knowing that it should be there, and that he has not found it. the thought might enter into his mind that it was PART of the stuff stuck to Smaug's belly, and is now simply sitting at the bottom of Lake Esgaroth waiting to be retrieved. From that POV it's a wonder Thorin is calling in friends from the Iron hills with pumps to come and negotiating to drain the lake!

Morsul the Dark

01-02-2014, 02:00 PM

Actually, the very terms of that contract sound a little sketchy anyway. You notice Thorin says from the beginning ("1/14 of the profits (if any) not "1/14 of the hoard". Nice an legal, but it actually does give Thorin a sneaky opening. In once sense it works to Bilbo's advantage, since it techically means he is entitled to 1/4 of the Troll hoard as well. But by defining it as "total profits" Thorin actually has ample opportunity, if he feels so inclined to cut Bilbo out entierly. He can claim that the hoard is communal property of the Dwaven kingdom of Erebor, and as such does not actually belong to any of the party personally, so no party profit actually ensued (i.e. bilbo is entiteld to 1/14 of nothing, and always was). Or he could deduct from the shares such expenses as accrued from the trip. For the dwarves these retroactive expenses are largely meaningless, as they are being paid from them to them (so it's really just being re-paid) but Bilbo, who is NOT a member of the Dwaven Kingdom, could easily find his 1/14 eaten up with "expenses".

Well that is what "of profits" means.

We have to remember though, Bilbo took but two small chets which was actually a fraction of his total share. Meanin they probably went with "value" to measure the shares, would the arkenstone outweighed the entirety of the horde I doubt it. I always felt while probably worth a fortune it was probably more of a sentimental thing.

However, to the intial point I thought Bilbo took the arkenstone to make it a bargaining chip to avoid battle. It seems to me though it backfired just angering Thorin further.

What is probably the strangest part of The Hobbit is that in the end the goblins saved the day. Do we think Gandalf could have stopped The Elves, Dwarves, and Lakemen from tearing each other apart?

Alfirin

01-02-2014, 03:54 PM

Well that is what "of profits" means.

of course that's what "of profits means". The point I was trying to make was that, by some legal hairsplitting, Thorin could have interpreted the contract so that, regardless of the actual outcome of the quest, he did not have to, or plan to, give Bilbo one red farthing, that should his avarice get the better of him, he could simply send Bilbo away with empty pockets and not technically have reneged on the terms of the contract. Or in the second case it would translate out to "yes you did your job , but I am taking your whole share to pay me back for having to take you in the first place (sort of a variation of the "your uncle has died and left you a million dollars, however with the taxes and fees you now owe us five million."

We have to remember though, Bilbo took but two small chets which was actually a fraction of his total share. Meanin they probably went with "value" to measure the shares, would the arkenstone outweighed the entirety of the horde I doubt it. I always felt while probably worth a fortune it was probably more of a sentimental thing.

Ah, but remember it would probably be the dwarves who would be the ones assesing the value of the treasure and the shares, so the arkenstone is "worth" whatever THEY say it is. It's a bit like trying to define the value of the crown jewels of England as based soley on their bullion content and per carat gem value. As for the two small chests, yes, it is far less than what Bilbo's share actually was as per contract, but the question is is it less, equal to or more than what Bilbo would have actually gotten had Thorin still been alive. Bilbo is riding away with those chests in a world where Dain is now King under the Mountain, who has gotten through a terrible battle, has nearly had his whole kingdom wiped out as soon as it was reclaimed and has just SEEN what the consequences of excessive greed ultimately got his cousin. Would Thorin have come to the same conclusion had he lived through the battle, or more to the point, had the battle not actually ocurred or been so devatstating to the Dwarves?

Faramir Jones

01-07-2014, 07:53 AM

I have a theory that the two chests Bilbo took with him on his return journey from the Lonely Mountain are payment for two services rendered by him to the dwarves, not covered by the original contract: his rescuing them from the spiders; and secondly, his rescuing them from the Elvenking's cells.

I suggest this because, when the Mountain’s secret entrance was found, Thorin pointed out that now was Bilbo’s time ‘to perform the service for which he was included in our Company’, the time for him ‘to earn his Reward.’ Bilbo was a little indignant, because

I have got you out of two messes [the spiders and the Elvenking’s cells] already, which were hardly in the original bargain, so that I am, I think, already owed some reward. (My italics)

One could argue that Bilbo has already taken and disposed of his fourteenth share, in the shape of the Arkenstone; but that he still felt he was owed something for dealing with the 'two messes'.

Inziladun

01-07-2014, 06:29 PM

One could argue that Bilbo has already taken and disposed of his fourteenth share, in the shape of the Arkenstone; but that he still felt he was owed something for dealing with the 'two messes'.

The main issue with that interpretation is that Bilbo didn't want to take any of the treasure; he apparently just settled for the "two small chests, one filled with silver, and the other with gold" out of politeness to Dáin. I do wonder though if his failure to include any jewels there might not have been an after-affect of his dealings with the Arkenstone.

Faramir Jones

01-08-2014, 12:09 PM

The main issue with that interpretation is that Bilbo didn't want to take any of the treasure; he apparently just settled for the "two small chests, one filled with silver, and the other with gold" out of politeness to Dáin. I do wonder though if his failure to include any jewels there might not have been an after-affect of his dealings with the Arkenstone.

I think all of us can agree that Bilbo doesn't need any of the treasure. His father was from a rich family, who married into a richer one, and who built Bag End with the money. Even taking into account that Bilbo is an only child, unmarried and childless, he still has enough money not to work and to still keep up Bag End.

The failure to include any jewels may be, as you suggest, a reference to Thorin originally agreeing that the Arkenstone would be exchanged for a fourteenth share of the treasure, but in silver and gold, setting aside the gems.

Fordim Hedgethistle

01-09-2014, 12:04 PM

The only thing that matters to Bilbo is trying to find a way to prevent all-out war and he's willing to betray his friends and give up all hope of treasure if that means he can stop the killing. He's the greatest hero of them all, as he is the only one who thinks it better to give the treasure away and not fight instead of killing for gold.

And I would remind you that the last thing Thorin does before he dies is to beg Bilbo's forgiveness: if he no longer sees what Bilbo has done in a bad way, why on earth should anybody else?

Puddleglum

01-09-2014, 06:50 PM

Personally, I think too much is made of the word "betray". Certainly "Thorin" felt his interests had been betrayed, but I think Bilbo was both motivated by and acting in favor of the "best" interests of both Thorin and his friends - whether they felt so at the time or not.

Firstly, the end result of Bilbo's plan was intended to be (and actually worked out to be) that Thorin would get the Arkenstone he craved. It was passed to Bard as a negotiating tool, not for Bard to keep for his own - and Bard obviously saw it that way as well.

Second, as Fordim points out, Bilbo believed it was in the interests of the Dwarves to be friends with their neighbors and that their (esp Thorin's) insistence on standing for ALL their RIGHTS regardless of the consequences was damaging to THEM in the long run (or, even, in the short run).

Think, for instance, of how Tolkien portrayed Feanor's (and his sons) "dwarvish" insistence that the Silmaril was "THEIRs" and theirs alone. They certainly had a legal case to stand on, but the "I want mine and will destroy myself to get it" attitude was portrayed as wrong and leading to destruction.
It goes with the belief (right, I think) that "Pride" is more damaging than "loss".
Reminds me of an old rhyme ---
"Here lie the bones of Ezra McCray,
who died defending his right-of-way.
He was Right, dead Right, as he sped along,
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.

Bilbo, while hired to do a job, was neither a subject of Thorin, nor his servant. Rather he was a friend who felt it was an act of friendship to save Thorin, even from himself. And even at the risk of being disowned or even killed.

As Gandalf put it "Well done!, Mr. Baggins!"

MCRmyGirl4eva

01-10-2014, 01:52 PM

Looking at the point of what Thranduil had done for Bilbo:

Specifically? Nothing was stated. However, Bilbo had had plenty of time to observe him while hiding in his home. He was there long enough to pick up Elvish. Therefore, perhaps he had seen Thranduil's gentler side, especially if he had seen him interacting with Legolas, and so felt guilty about sneaking around and stealing food. Also, it's hinted that he had always had a fastination for Elves. These could have prompted him to feel some compassion for Thranduil and so choose to defend him in the battle and give him the necklace to repay him for all the stolen food and wine.

I'm not going to get into the Arkenstone business because that seems to already have been well covered. :p

Faramir Jones

01-14-2014, 04:16 AM

Bilbo, while hired to do a job, was neither a subject of Thorin, nor his servant. Rather he was a friend who felt it was an act of friendship to save Thorin, even from himself. And even at the risk of being disowned or even killed.

As Gandalf put it "Well done!, Mr. Baggins!"

You're right when you say that Bilbo could not have 'betrayed' Thorin because he had never given allegiance to him, as the dwarves did, and as the Rangers did to Aragorn II. He was also not an employee, so did not have that obligation to Thorin.

From the contract itself, and the events described, Bilbo was an independent contractor, a self-employed person, hired by the dwarves to take back (not 'steal' as it was their own property) treasure. He was promised a fourteenth share of the profits, Thorin modifying this to say that Bilbo could pick his own fourteenth. This Bilbo did, in the shape of the Arkenstone. As it was his property, he was entitled to dispose of it as he saw fit, in this case giving it to Bard for negotiating purposes. All this was prefectly legal and above board, covered in the contract.

In terms of giving the necklace to Thranduil, Bilbo felt that he owed him some compensation for the food and wine he had taken. There are also, as MCRmyGirl4eva correctly states, hints that he 'always had a fascination for Elves'.

The big joke in the book, I think, is that while Bilbo is described as a burglar, he's actually quite a respectable fellow, as shown above. Even in the case of Gollum and the ring, Bilbo genuinely didn't know who its owner was when he found it; and when he suspected the truth, he was in no mood to return the ring to someone who wanted to kill and eat him... :eek: In the same way, when he tried to pick a troll's pocket, any sympathy the reader might have for the troll is negated when he and the other two decide to kill and eat Bilbo and the dwarves. :D

The only time in The Hobbit where we can say Bilbo was a real burglar was when, after escaping with the dwarves from the Elvenking's halls, he stole food and drink from a village by the Long lake. The book does not record if he ever paid compensation for that theft... ;)

Puddleglum

01-14-2014, 10:48 AM

The only time in The Hobbit where we can say Bilbo was a real burglar was when, after escaping with the dwarves from the Elvenking's halls, he stole food and drink from a village by the Long lake. The book does not record if he ever paid compensation for that theft... ;)I think you are referring to the cold, dripping night he spent when the barrels were collected and tied into a raft? Those were Elves of Thranduil working along the Forest River while still in the forest.
BTW, here is a link to a drawing Tolkien made titled Bilbo comes to the Huts of the Raftelves (http://annemariegazzolo.mymiddleearth.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/2035/files/2013/08/Bilbo-comes-to-the-Huts-of-the-Raftelves.jpg)
There are even a few references to these later in Laketown as when Thorin declares "I speak to the Master of the men of the lake, NOT to the raft elves of the king"

At any event, Bilbo likely lumped that theft in with all the others during his stay in Thranduil's halls. And, no doubt, even the "small" present he made to the king more than covered (monetarily) the food he ate.

Faramir Jones

01-14-2014, 05:35 PM

I think you are referring to the cold, dripping night he spent when the barrels were collected and tied into a raft? Those were Elves of Thranduil working along the Forest River while still in the forest.
BTW, here is a link to a drawing Tolkien made titled Bilbo comes to the Huts of the Raftelves (http://annemariegazzolo.mymiddleearth.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/2035/files/2013/08/Bilbo-comes-to-the-Huts-of-the-Raftelves.jpg)
There are even a few references to these later in Laketown as when Thorin declares "I speak to the Master of the men of the lake, NOT to the raft elves of the king"

At any event, Bilbo likely lumped that theft in with all the others during his stay in Thranduil's halls. And, no doubt, even the "small" present he made to the king more than covered (monetarily) the food he ate.

You're right, Puddleglum! We'll spotted! :)

Lotrelf

08-23-2015, 07:20 PM

You know what? I loved that scene. I read TH few days back and realized that scene in particular showed the real growth of Bilbo Baggins keeping his hobbit sense alive. Bilbo knew Thorin was wrong and in my opinion Thorin's attitude towards the treasure was not justified. Bilbo offering the Arkenstone to the Elf and Bard was more than understandable. He knew they were right (though I think Thranduil would be better off) and Thorin was taken over by greed. Him wanting to get away without letting anybody get hurt was noble, not treacherous.

William Cloud Hicklin

08-27-2015, 08:04 PM

of course that's what "of profits means".... by some legal hairsplitting, Thorin could have interpreted the contract so that, regardless of the actual outcome of the quest, he did not have to, or plan to, give Bilbo one red farthing.

In other words, pretty much what New Line said to the Tolkien Estate. "Nope, no profits, just barely broke even at $3 billion."

Faramir Jones

08-30-2015, 05:56 AM

If there was real legal hairsplitting going on from Thorin, as in our universe, in terms of him trying to give Bilbo nothing, the matter might have ended up in litigation, with a case such as Bilbo Baggins, Esq. v Thorin Rex, where the hobbit sues the new King under the Mountain. I can imagine it being very difficult for Thorin to claim that the vast treasure of his grandfather just vanished.:D Also, what about Bilbo being properly paid for rescuing Thorin and his people from the spiders and the Elvenkings cells?:smokin:

To be fair to Thorin, he had already given Bilbo the first part of his promised reward, the mithril coat, which we later read was more valuable than the whole Shire and everything in it.:eek:

William Cloud Hicklin

08-31-2015, 06:09 PM

Bilbo would have a heck of a time finding a court of competent jurisdiction

Faramir Jones

09-03-2015, 01:27 AM

The two jurisdictions that spring to mind are the Shire or the newly re-established Kingdom under the Mountain. The first, because the contract was made there; the second, because there could be an argument that the contract was governed by dwarf law.

There would also be the political background. Would anyone want to do business with a state whose ruler failed to keep his promise to properly reward the person who helped to restore it?:eek:

Leaf

09-18-2015, 06:01 AM

A point about the legal discussion of the contract between Bilbo and Thorin: I think this contract is void (from the beginning) since there's no sovereign who could defend (and establish) the validity of the contract against both of the contracting parties. There's no legal instance which could force one (or both) of the parties to act according to the contractual clauses, or issue punishment otherwise.

Aside from the legal discussion, Bilbo's so called treachery is the thing I admire the most about his character in The Hobbit. In the end Bilbo doesn't follow a pack mentality, but does what he thinks is the right thing to do. To archive that he considered the means at hand.

I'd like to close my post with a quote that answers a similar accusation, but in a different context:

But Olwë answered: 'We renounce no friendship. But it may be the part of a friend to rebuke a friend's folly.'

Ivriniel

11-07-2015, 09:34 PM

On the face of it, I can see the source of your outrage. However, I disagree.

Bard's legal claim to a share of the treasure seems solid, as items from Dale were mixed in with Erebor's, the only question being the size of it. A moral share would also appear honest, as 1.The dwarves had awakened Smaug, who destroyed Lake-town; 2. Lake-town had befriended the dwarves and had given them food and other provisions, and 3. Bard was the descendant of Girion, the lord of Dale, and the slayer of Smaug.
No, Thranduil had no stake in the hoard, and it might have been better if the elven-host had stayed out of sight when Bard parleyed with Thorin, but Thranduil was there out of friendship with Esgaroth, and pity for them in their time of need.

Bilbo's dealing with the Arkenstone was borne from a hobbit-like wish to avoid conflict, especially one over gold. The rightness of at least Bilbo's intent in taking the Arkenstone and handing it to Bard would seem to be proven in Gandalf's reaction: "Well done! Mr. Baggins!"

Bilbo's stated preference to die defending Thranduil might stem from the mere "oddity" (as a hobbit) he displayed in his affinity for Elves in general.

As for Bilbo giving Thranduil the necklace, Bilbo himself said he did it to pay for the food he'd eaten in the elven-halls. He wasn't necessarily ungrateful. We don't see him giving away the mithril coat, after all.

I hear ya. I'm sooo with you about Bilbo. He was quite a little bit weird. The whole 'invisibility' thing I remember reading it, enthralled the first time I read it, in the Spring sunshine, of 1981, in the backyard of my home, transported so very far away from Earth into this wondrous land.

Even then though, I recall a sense of a haunt about Bilbo. The Ring was just wrong, but I never thought too much about it. And it was really very strange, wasn't it, to steal the Arkenstone.

I 'get' that it was an attempt to force the Dwarves into parlay, but really, the invading Yrch, and Warg did plenty and beyond to unify the whole idiotic xenophobic, greedy-otic lotta them!

Humans, Dwarves, Elves and Orcs! All Begone! Nuisances the lotta them :)

Faramir Jones

11-08-2015, 07:41 AM

Ivriniel

11-08-2015, 04:04 PM

Ivriniel, Bilbo didn't steal the Arkenstone; it was part of the agreed fourteenth share of the profits he was promised in his contract with the dwarves. Thorin also changed the contract to say that he could pick and choose his own fourteenth share; so Bilbo was within his rights to take the Arkenstone; and as it was his personal property, he was entitled to give it away if he wanted.

I'd not interpreted it that way. But to ride with how you put it, it's still awkward at best, or impolite scheming in any case. A Hobbit, brought up in Hobbiton, with such refineries in Hobbiton on The Hill, in a wealthy Hobbit Hole, with Sackville Bagginses 'spoon stealing' :), Bilbo would have been quite aware that he was transgressing. "You don't bite the hand that feeds you", or "leave the core Dwarvish relic to the Dwarves when choosing my wealth--don't be rude, Bilbo"

I remember thinking that Bilbo seemed to be minimising as a Hobbit with a guilty conscience. Rationalised what he knew was going to make enraged Dwarves.

I also wondered if Bilbo was quite a little bit 'over' :) the Dwarf-Elf antagonism, and more than just a little bit annoyed at the 13 of them, after months of being underdog, underling, subordinated, mistreated, and then winning the 14 of them. So over them all, that he 'Arkenstoned' himself to exile, a-purpose.

Faramir Jones

11-08-2015, 05:07 PM

Ivriniel

11-08-2015, 07:43 PM

You suggested, Ivriniel, that Bilbo ''Arkenstoned' himself to exile, a-purpose'. My view is that Bilbo, after handing over the Arkenstone, didn't have to go back to the dwarves. He had carried out the terms of his contract, including taking his reward; so he had no further legal obligations towards them and Thorin. However, he wanted to return to those he regarded as his friends.

I suppose some legal-ese can be applied to the analysis, and that was somewhat of it in the book. I recall Tolkien was a little tongue in cheek about the contract. Bilbo signed something at the Unexpected Party.

I'm not sure the Arkenstone was "one fourteenth" of the treasure. How Dwarves reckon it and the cultural emphasis on valuation of the wealth would matter, I suspect.

I don't seem to remember Gandalf being overly upset about the 'theft' of the Stone, and so, Bilbo declaring the theft was somewhat washed clean of the grime of the manipulation.

Inziladun

11-08-2015, 08:23 PM

I don't seem to remember Gandalf being overly upset about the 'theft' of the Stone, and so, Bilbo declaring the theft was somewhat washed clean of the grime of the manipulation.

Gandalf's comment on the matter to Bilbo was "Well done!" If that wasn't an absolution for Bilbo, what else could one possibly ask for?

Galadriel55

11-08-2015, 09:04 PM

I don't think that Bilbo's deed was honest, in respect to the Dwarves. He does not think so either. But he knew it was necessary, which is why he did it, and why Gandalf approved. Sometimes doing the ultimately right thing isn't necessarily doing what might be right in an isolated moment. In the modern times, if your friend, who lives by a lake, is on hallucinogens and decides that he can walk on water - lock him up in his room, and preferably restrain him from doing too much damage. You might be a jerk to your friend, in that moment, but you're doing the right thing. And if it's a good friend, they'll thank you after.

Debating whether or not Bilbo's act qualifies as stealing is, in my opinion, an unfruitful argument. It was dishonest. It was not nice. But it was the right thing to do, and the Dwarves, including Thorin, saw that in the end. The contract - it's technical rubbish. Bilbo and the Dwarves might use it to throw "technically" arguments at each other to justify their behaviour, especially in times when their behaviour is most questionable, but at the end of the day they believe in greater things than petty legal technicalities. Why would a well-bred hobbit do such a dishonest thing? Because this particular well-bred hobbit agreed to go god knows where in the company of thirteen unknown men who trashed his house. If Bilbo has enough Took in him to step over that line, he might be one of the few who have enough adventurousness to rise above other rules as well. Was it a good act? Yesno: depends how you argue. It was certainly not good in that it was dishonest, and Bilbo did betray Thorin&co's trust, but it was good in that it was ultimately the right thing to do.

Ivriniel

11-08-2015, 09:13 PM

Inziladun

11-09-2015, 03:14 PM

I don't think that Bilbo's deed was honest, in respect to the Dwarves. He does not think so either. But he knew it was necessary, which is why he did it, and why Gandalf approved.

I think the taking of the Arkenstone was really a betrayal of Thorin as an individual rather than the whole company, as Bilbo would see it.

It was Thorin who had given the order to all the others that he alone had the rights to the jewel, and it seems it was mainly fear of Thorin's wrath that bothered Bilbo about keeping it secret.

Galadriel55

11-09-2015, 07:30 PM

I think the taking of the Arkenstone was really a betrayal of Thorin as an individual rather than the whole company, as Bilbo would see it.

It was Thorin who had given the order to all the others that he alone had the rights to the jewel, and it seems it was mainly fear of Thorin's wrath that bothered Bilbo about keeping it secret.

Ye-es. I agree that it was mainly Thorin that was problematic, but at the same time you can't call Bilbo's deed completely honest in respect to the other Dwarves. It's true that the others wouldn't mind Bilbo taking the Arkenstone as much, and they wouldn't see his act as such a betrayal. But the nature of Bilbo's act groups the Dwarves into one group, like it or not. One rotten apple spoils the bunch?

So yes, I agree that he's mostly going behind Thorin's back, but he's acting behind all of the Dwarves' backs. He may not be as much of a jerk to the others, but it's still hardly honest.

Leaf

11-10-2015, 09:39 AM

But the nature of Bilbo's act groups the Dwarves into one group, like it or not. One rotten apple spoils the bunch?

Well, in this case, yes. This particular apple is the proclaimed and recognized leader of their company and the bunch doesn't do anything to stop him. I know that a few of them are disagreeing with Thorin, but they remain idle, while the rest of the bunch is supporting his course.

Thorin's course of action might easily lead to their death, either trough starvation and illness (due to the siege), or due to a battle, even though there isn't a real necessity or profit, at the time. Thorin and company are willingly gambling their own well-being for a surplus of a few percent. I think that justifies Bilbo (or any of the dwarves) to act against said course of action. Being 'dishonest' is a reasonable price to pay in this situation.

Zigûr

11-10-2015, 10:27 AM

Ivriniel

11-10-2015, 06:19 PM

I think the situation is a good example of how in The Hobbit Professor Tolkien juxtaposes the "modern" and "heroic" modes, with Bilbo being, or at least trying to present himself as, a businesslike character with an arguably "pragmatic" approach while the Dwarves exist in a heroic/romantic framework, caring about their treasure and driven by fairly unswerving loyalty to their king, even when his decisions seem irrational or potentially dishonorable.

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

Galadriel55

11-10-2015, 08:58 PM

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

I don't see how that changes the issue. The Ring certainly helped Bilbo execute his plot, and maybe he wouldn't have dared to do such a radical thing without invisibility, but the fact remains that he wasn't going to take Thorin's attitude lying down. As for the Ring's hold over Bilbo - what does that have to do with anything?

Ivriniel

11-10-2015, 09:15 PM

I don't see how that changes the issue. The Ring certainly helped Bilbo execute his plot, and maybe he wouldn't have dared to do such a radical thing without invisibility, but the fact remains that he wasn't going to take Thorin's attitude lying down. As for the Ring's hold over Bilbo - what does that have to do with anything?

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

Zigûr

11-10-2015, 09:17 PM

Ivriniel

11-10-2015, 09:24 PM

Yes given that the Ring was not conceived of as an evil object at the time, and as I'm fairly sure Professor Tolkien did not revise those parts of the text after he did conceive of it that way, the role of the Ring does not seem especially relevant to me.

Look. I recall seeing in the prose, Gandalf looking sideways at Bilbo about some of his behaviour. Do you recall that or not?

Ivriniel

11-10-2015, 11:11 PM

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

11-11-2015, 12:18 AM

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.
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 (http://www.ringgame.net/riddles.html) 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

11-11-2015, 03:15 AM

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 (http://www.ringgame.net/riddles.html) 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

11-11-2015, 03:39 AM

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

11-11-2015, 04:51 AM

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

11-11-2015, 05:17 AM

I can't see how that can be the case.
Well, I'm sorry, but it is.
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.
He wrote First Age notes well ahead of the Hobbit.
He wrote "Quenta Silmarillion" before The Hobbit, yes. I am not denying this.
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.
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

11-11-2015, 05:25 AM

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

11-11-2015, 05:29 AM

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

11-11-2015, 05:53 AM

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.
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

11-11-2015, 08:01 AM

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

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

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.

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

11-11-2015, 03:38 PM

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

11-11-2015, 03:55 PM

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

11-11-2015, 04:24 PM

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.

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.

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.

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.

*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

11-11-2015, 04:51 PM

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

11-11-2015, 04:57 PM

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

11-11-2015, 06:02 PM

...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

11-11-2015, 07:36 PM

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

11-11-2015, 07:47 PM

@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

11-12-2015, 09:41 AM

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

11-29-2015, 12:01 AM

Morthoron

11-29-2015, 11:16 AM

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

11-29-2015, 08:24 PM

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

11-30-2015, 12:08 AM

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

11-30-2015, 02:02 AM

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

11-30-2015, 04:54 PM

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

11-30-2015, 07:41 PM

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

11-30-2015, 07:50 PM

@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

12-01-2015, 02:47 AM

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.

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

12-01-2015, 04:17 AM

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

12-01-2015, 04:52 PM

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

12-01-2015, 04:55 PM

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

12-01-2015, 05:11 PM

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

May I suggest the Middle Earth Mirth forum?

Pitchwife

12-02-2015, 02:54 AM

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

12-02-2015, 04:43 AM

@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

12-02-2015, 06:17 AM

....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

12-02-2015, 08:03 AM

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

12-02-2015, 03:28 PM

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:

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.)

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.

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:
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.:mad:

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.

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

12-02-2015, 03:53 PM

(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]

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

12-02-2015, 03:59 PM

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

12-02-2015, 04:56 PM

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]

Ivriniel

12-02-2015, 05:05 PM

@Morthoron

Synthesis of the last post:

1.It's a 'editorial mangling mythological purpose' argument. Just in case the 'nub' of the argument is lost, or distorted, or struck by personalised commentary, which distracts other readers from the 'point' of a 'point'. Have I made my 'point'?
2. Rather than your use of 'magnifying' I replace the term with 'restores'. He -- restored -- narrative Lore, mythology, and original purpose after The Hobbit, and after having his ideas were -- butchered -- by Editors in their original criticisms of his FA mythologies. Those FA mythologies were, in many (not all) ways already in place prior to writing of The Hobbit.

I see then, the major means for 'picking holes' would really required knowing what it was that Allen and Unwin originally 'saw' and 'picked holes in' and then also, what major artefacts of Lore (e.g. Dragons, Rings) would have narrative - thematic level only (i.e. not detailed, just the major themes of mythology) - consistency in FA materials.

Morthoron

12-02-2015, 05:52 PM

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...

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.

Now that we (every poster in this thread minus one poor sod) have reached consensus establishing that Bilbo's magic ring in the first edition of The Hobbit was not the One Ring of Lord of the Rings, the thought I had was -- why would anyone need to assign outside sources to Bilbo's behavior in The Hobbit, or, at least, The Hobbit before it was revised?

Bilbo Baggins was from the outset not a sterling and spotless individual. He was house-proud, rather haughty of his comfortable station and could be very rude in a Hobbitish manner. That he could be pompous, secretive, covetous and dissembling is not out of the realm of Hobbit character; in fact, there are many other instances of Hobbits behaving badly I'm sure we all can recall.

But he did manage, through adversity and his own reluctance, to do the right thing more often than not, and to do the right thing even when his inner stodgy-Baggins was arguing against his actions.

Ivriniel

12-02-2015, 05:56 PM

Galadriel55

12-02-2015, 09:16 PM

The question that has been explored this thread by several posters was

Did Bilbo's base levels of secretiveness, beguiling by lies of omission, and dissembling (mendatious perhaps to alter the 'flavour' or prevarication, if one imputes more sinister tones) manner increase over the course of the narrative.

Was it, though? I don't recall posts with a longitudinal type of analysis comparing Bilbo "now" against Bilbo "then" within the same edition.

But since you bring it up, no, I don't think Bilbo's innate flaws increase; I just think that the range of application widened. In the Shire, his best and worst deeds were limited to the life of a haughty, comfortable, reasonably well-off hobbit, a life in which formalities could go for ethics, or etiquette for morality - a life in which written contracts matter and "1/14 share" would be calculated to the penny. In the "adventure" part of his travels, Bilbo's actions begin to have a much more profound impact on both himself and his companions. He realized that he has the power to do or not to do, which he can use to, say, save everyone's lives, or make an independent choice for himself. He has a choice to tell the Dwarves about the Ring, or to keep it a secret. Firstly, as Pitch mentioned above, part of his wanted to look daring and dashing to the Dwarves. They have been underestimating his value quite a lot, which would have increased the innate desire to prove oneself. But also there is the issue of independence. When the Dwares need Bilbo, their attitude is "You signed up for this, this is your quest too now, go do the dirty work". But once that's done, Bilbo is just "the burglar" - it's an "us vs him" scenario. Well, if he can't fully be part of this quest, soul and heart, he might as well become his own individual rather than a tag-along to wipe the dirt with. Independence isn't necessarily a lack of reliance; for Bilbo is just has to mean that his agenda does not necessarily hinge on the Dwarves, and having a secret of his own does precisely that. It gives a purpose to the adventure that is specific to him.

And as he discovers the consequences of his choices and actions, he also does a lot of reevaluating. The foundation and framework of his former life becomes less important to him than things that are above mere formality - like food and cheer... and bravery, and friendship, and selflessness, and many more. And at this point his conscience really wins out against any wandering greed, or cowardice, or comfort-seeking-ness, indecisiveness, selfishness, apathy, what have you.

Yes, had his conscience not won, he would have had a greater range of negative deeds at his disposal. But the change is not so much in his own qualities as it is with the range of application of those qualities, and the range of consequences they have on others.

So I have to agree with Morthoron here - the negative qualities Bilbo displays throughout the book are not born at the spur of the moment, they were always present in him - just controlled differently and pointed elsewhere. Likewise, his positive qualities aren't dropped down from the ceiling; they just lay dormant in him, snoozing away in a comfortable life.

EDIT: Just to point out, at this point in the story Gandalf isn't that well-versed in Ring-lore. I don't have FOTR with me, but from what I recall he made the trip to Gondor's library only after Bilbo returned home to the Shire - perhaps even after Bilbo's 111th birthday. The queer look he gives Bilbo after his glorified tale of his escape from the goblins is very much explicable just by the extravagance of the tale, and suspicions specific to the nature of the Ring are quite unlikely.

Zigûr

12-02-2015, 10:28 PM

EDIT: Just to point out, at this point in the story Gandalf isn't that well-versed in Ring-lore. I don't have FOTR with me, but from what I recall he made the trip to Gondor's library only after Bilbo returned home to the Shire - perhaps even after Bilbo's 111th birthday. The queer look he gives Bilbo after his glorified tale of his escape from the goblins is very much explicable just by the extravagance of the tale, and suspicions specific to the nature of the Ring are quite unlikely.
Yes, according to the Tale of Years Gandalf visited Minas Tirith and read the scroll of Isildur in 3017.

That's not to say that he was ignorant of Ring-lore before that, of course, but it had been Saruman's area of expertise, not his:
"The lore of the Elven-rings, great and small, is his province. He has long studied it, seeking the lost secrets of their making; but when the Rings were debated in the Council, all that he would reveal to us of his ring-lore told against my fears." [The Shadow of the Past]

Ivriniel

12-03-2015, 04:40 AM

Was it, though? I don't recall posts with a longitudinal type of analysis comparing Bilbo "now" against Bilbo "then" within the same edition.

But since you bring it up, no, I don't think Bilbo's innate flaws increase; I just think that the range of application widened. In the Shire, his best and worst deeds were limited to the life of a haughty, comfortable, reasonably well-off hobbit, a life in which formalities could go for ethics, or etiquette for morality - a life in which written contracts matter and "1/14 share" would be calculated to the penny. In the "adventure" part of his travels, Bilbo's actions begin to have a much more profound impact on both himself and his companions. He realized that he has the power to do or not to do, which he can use to, say, save everyone's lives, or make an independent choice for himself. He has a choice to tell the Dwarves about the Ring, or to keep it a secret. Firstly, as Pitch mentioned above, part of his wanted to look daring and dashing to the Dwarves. They have been underestimating his value quite a lot, which would have increased the innate desire to prove oneself. But also there is the issue of independence. When the Dwares need Bilbo, their attitude is "You signed up for this, this is your quest too now, go do the dirty work". But once that's done, Bilbo is just "the burglar" - it's an "us vs him" scenario. Well, if he can't fully be part of this quest, soul and heart, he might as well become his own individual rather than a tag-along to wipe the dirt with. Independence isn't necessarily a lack of reliance; for Bilbo is just has to mean that his agenda does not necessarily hinge on the Dwarves, and having a secret of his own does precisely that. It gives a purpose to the adventure that is specific to him.

And as he discovers the consequences of his choices and actions, he also does a lot of reevaluating. The foundation and framework of his former life becomes less important to him than things that are above mere formality - like food and cheer... and bravery, and friendship, and selflessness, and many more. And at this point his conscience really wins out against any wandering greed, or cowardice, or comfort-seeking-ness, indecisiveness, selfishness, apathy, what have you.

Yes, had his conscience not won, he would have had a greater range of negative deeds at his disposal. But the change is not so much in his own qualities as it is with the range of application of those qualities, and the range of consequences they have on others.

So I have to agree with Morthoron here - the negative qualities Bilbo displays throughout the book are not born at the spur of the moment, they were always present in him - just controlled differently and pointed elsewhere. Likewise, his positive qualities aren't dropped down from the ceiling; they just lay dormant in him, snoozing away in a comfortable life.

EDIT: Just to point out, at this point in the story Gandalf isn't that well-versed in Ring-lore. I don't have FOTR with me, but from what I recall he made the trip to Gondor's library only after Bilbo returned home to the Shire - perhaps even after Bilbo's 111th birthday. The queer look he gives Bilbo after his glorified tale of his escape from the goblins is very much explicable just by the extravagance of the tale, and suspicions specific to the nature of the Ring are quite unlikely.

Hi Galadriel. Interesting thoughts :)

The longitudinal analysis, upon review of various entries upstream, was implicit in several of my posts, and possibly some of others. Occasionally I find that one evolves or unearths an ambiguous feature or element in an argument.

I'm going to go find some materials, I think for this one, and also for the 'editorial butchery' argument. I have no -- strong -- alliance to the 'Bilbo grew increasingly - evil' from 'Baseline Hobbit'svillian level' theory.

It's going to be a 'bit-of-a-son-of-an-unmarried-couple' to pin, either way, as elucidation of the position is:

1. Atypical argumentation style (i.e. non-canon, and inferential methodology).
2. It's going to be really difficult getting agreement about 'baseline hobbitish' dissembling tendency.
3. Difficult to locate specific textual features in the Hobbit (they are few, in explicit form and several more in the implicit form). As a 'theory' it's going to be, really, just discussion point.

I will attempt it though. Ungoliant seems to be sleeping atm. Shelob as well, good god! And Unlight to Light Tonite :)

Kind Regards

Andsigil

12-03-2015, 06:16 AM

Ungoliant seems to be sleeping atm. Shelob as well, good god! And Unlight to Light Tonite :)

https://media.giphy.com/media/glmRyiSI3v5E4/giphy.gif

Pitchwife

12-03-2015, 12:23 PM

I see then, the major means for 'picking holes' would really required knowing what it was that Allen and Unwin originally 'saw' and 'picked holes in' and then also, what major artefacts of Lore (e.g. Dragons, Rings) would have narrative - thematic level only (i.e. not detailed, just the major themes of mythology) - consistency in FA materials.
To the best of my knowledge, A & U didn't see anything of the First Age materials until after The Hobbit had been published and become a success and the question of a sequel came up, and then rejected it as unsuitable for the audience of TH - which is a good thing, for we wouldn't have The Lord of the Rings otherwise.

As for the state and themes of Tolkien's legendarium before and at the time of writing TH, the materials are all published and documented in the volumes of The History of Middle-earth. There were dragons, mostly used as war machines by Morgoth, but there was also already Glaurung (originally called Glórund), devastating the kingdom of Nargothrond and the lives of the the Children of Húrin. There was a lieutenant of Morgoth (long named Thû, later renamed Sauron) who had a thing for vampires and werewplves, a proficient shape-changer and dread interrogator who won a famous song contest with Felagund, but had yet nothing to do with rings of any kind (Eregion and the Gwaith-i-Mirdain only came into the picture during the writing of LotR). The only ring of any notability was the Ring of Doom, the place outside Valmar where the Valar sat in a circle in council or judgment.

The view that Tolkien wrote The Hobbit as a 'dumbed-down' version of his mythology to get it past a publisher doesn't hold in my opinion because the story wasn't originally devised for publication at all. He made it up as a bedtime story for his children, and elements of his mythology like dragons, dwarves, elves and goblins were used as narrative building bricks because they were lying around in his head anyway - readymades, if you like. But I don't think it was originally meant to be a canonic part of the legendarium any more than, say, Mr Bliss or Roverandom. It became so during the writing of its sequel, as more and more connections were drawn between the story of Mr Baggins, his heir and the Ring and the matter of the First and Second Ages. In the history of the legendarium at large, The Hobbit is, I think, best described as a detour on which hitherto uncharted territory was discovered and some older elements were seen in a new light - the Dwarves, for example, were mostly presented as hostile, treacherous creatures in the earlier material, and a character like Gimli would have been unconceivable then).

And I must say I object to the term 'dumbing down' with respect to The Hobbit. Sure, the mythological trappings are shoved far into the background, kinslaying and incest are completely absent, but we are recompensed for that with a detail and fullness of characterisation we don't find in the legends of the First Age. We get to know Bilbo Baggins better than we ever do Túrin or Beren or Fëanor, warts and wrinkles and all. The Hobbit was a huge progress for Tolkien as a writer without which he could never have given us The Lord of the Rings.

why would anyone need to assign outside sources to Bilbo's behavior in The Hobbit, or, at least, The Hobbit before it was revised?
Mainly contrariness, like I said. My inner companion just handed me a prompt card, it reads *squints* "I may be wrong. Let's do it your way." But let's not be hasty and await Ivriniel's longitudinal analysis first.

Ivriniel

12-03-2015, 04:19 PM

https://media.giphy.com/media/glmRyiSI3v5E4/giphy.gif

hahahahahahahahaha

Ivriniel

12-03-2015, 04:29 PM

...And I must say I object to the term 'dumbing down' with respect to The Hobbit....

Dumbing down was a colloquialism applied to Morthoron's adaptation, in the post prior on the prior page, where she/he adapted an argument and compared creatures in proportions of mythology.

It is a summation of this:

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.

So, 'dumbing down' in that context. I object to having the objection objectively objected into an objecti--ungoliant-- at the morgoth's unFinwe-ised Miriel-unlighted. The premise to pin it on Gollumisaions and back-toUnGaladrieling.

Ie, Pitchwife, please don't pin that on me. It's better where it refers to. Morthoron was asserting that the Hobbit was less Lore-lofty, and I say dumbed down, run in reverse. The pre-AMPED UP variation.

PS: I am doing the research atm.

I'm pretty clear: there's some 1927 materials. That's the basic research premise. I'll be back.

Zigûr

12-03-2015, 04:45 PM

To the best of my knowledge, A & U didn't see anything of the First Age materials until after The Hobbit had been published and become a success and the question of a sequel came up, and then rejected it as unsuitable for the audience of TH - which is a good thing, for we wouldn't have The Lord of the Rings otherwise.
Yes, I believe Professor Tolkien offered The Silmarillion to Allen & Unwin after the success of The Hobbit, not before, when they requested more fiction from him, but they wanted more about Hobbits.

Of course, the narratives which contributed to The Silmarillion, including 'The Fall of Gondolin', were under composition in late 1916/early 1917 and continued over subsequent years. They were not merely a series of 'notes' but rather fleshed-out (if in some cases unfinished) narratives. This is, of course, all detailed in the two volumes of "The Book of Lost Tales" published as the first two volumes of "The History of Middle-earth".

Ivriniel

12-04-2015, 12:03 AM

Now that we (every poster in this thread minus one poor sod) have reached consensus establishing that Bilbo's magic ring in the first edition of The Hobbit was not the One Ring of Lord of the Rings, the thought I had was -- why would anyone need to assign outside sources to Bilbo's behavior in The Hobbit, or, at least, The Hobbit before it was revised?

Bilbo Baggins was from the outset not a sterling and spotless individual. He was house-proud, rather haughty of his comfortable station and could be very rude in a Hobbitish manner. That he could be pompous, secretive, covetous and dissembling is not out of the realm of Hobbit character; in fact, there are many other instances of Hobbits behaving badly I'm sure we all can recall.

But he did manage, through adversity and his own reluctance, to do the right thing more often than not, and to do the right thing even when his inner stodgy-Baggins was arguing against his actions.

I'm starting here. A prefix post.

This 'poor sod', is so very 'sodden' about the 'sod' who would need to use the word 'sod' to make a rather 'sodden story' about

misprocessing posts.

Of course, that was exactly ShelGoliant's vomit, Unlighted, friendliness. It's so very Morgothian-isatation and welcome-Un-warmingly, a bit like, "I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve". Thank for your - cause - to have me - smiling - again as I post, and read as I write. The -- need -- to personalise -- by -- group alliancing -- is of course, a bit like primate politics. Wait :) I'm a primate, I'm referring, or um, refereeing to myself, or. errrm, uuuum, just enjoying making myself --laugh--Who has a sense of humour, would I suppose as well, unless, Morgaron, it's going to be the --idiot-- who would --seriously??? take it so --seriously--that there is -- a seriously, serious ---need --- to um, UnAttack hahahah poster.

Lighten up - is it 'wench''missus''mister'sir, Sirius or Ungoliant....And seriously: (next post) serious means 'topical materials for context of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH MY GOD, I have a HEADACHE hahaha, I've been researching, Morathon, and have actually, been idiotically dumb enough to actually really find -- a whole day-- to research a response

I have a headache hahaha, but "I did it just for you" hahahaha (as in, I really am laughing--at ? myself? I hope so? Because you/re not actually 'ere.

It's just text, my 'dear' um, (oh I don't want to be patronising), um what word is best, erm, 'kind morothon?" um -erm I just don't quite know how to 'thank you' for all your lovely words of welcome. So, I've entertained myself. Stopped caring. Researched it. And I'm going to write some of the finding up.

*coughs* ahhh, there's some 'each way' (ie it's not at all as you've surmised,yet not entirely is wise, to downgrade ur wisdom, moragon, entirely.

Similarly, as I've always said about textual-posting modes, context of authorship counts.

You have - squarely - distorted my position. However, I'm quite smilingly well about it. I will begin with the--short--correction and - outpouring of

1. A review of Tolkien's letters, in chronological order, against the truant dates in question (1937 onwards)
2. What we know about what Tolkien did and didn't say, about "The Ring" and certainly only "a ring" not "a Ring" at all in The hobbit, yet ver-ily hahaha nonetheless morthgoroan
3. Context - there certainly IS substance to matters in my materials, even though I'm the 'idiot' hahaha who purportedly idiotically didn't give rat's behind about part of your point, and did indeed care about part of your points.

Have I made my point? It's just fun, right?

Wait

3. UT and materials about Rings and Necromancers and SauronS (plural - Tolkien was rather 'dual-personality-ed' about things. Names evolved. Mythology shifted.
4. The correct point I made about 'pre-Hobbit Lore'.
5. The Hobbit version I have (I never claimed it was 'the original', nor did I ever care to ponder finding a dusty 1933 Hobbit version hahahaha. Back to The Future, please.
6. And six (as in the 'devil's number' hahaha) a book a found in my library, termed Master of Middle Earth, in a delightful return and review of materials.

Ivriniel

12-04-2015, 12:19 AM

First up Morgathonron,

I've got about 300 posts here. Anyone who's read any of them, knows very well, that I so very seldom --care--to ground an argument in a specific date, or particularly narrow range of dates.

Because - Master Prof T (as Captain Janeway said "temporal causality loops give me a headache"), **never** wrote anything, ever, once, ever that didn't evolved by the time he started on the ensuing chapter of his 'next' works.

Ergo, I ***ditched*** a long time ago, the foolishly narrow attempt (self-reference, right. Put your ego away--no narcissism here please, it's boring) to 'prescribe' an 'exact' position about anything in the mythology.

I never claimed in any of my arguments that Ungoliant ate the Silmarils. Woops, I mean, I never - ever attempted - to EVER argue that "the 1876 version of the Hobbit, had The Ring (proper noun here please for the point of my item) first and foremost in the Prof's mind, and neither did I care, that he did or didn't.

All my materials were on another mode of methodological analysis, entirely. I prefer the mode that is about inferential 'diagnostic' or 'interpretation' of an author's 'tacit intention' and possibly 'explicit motivations and intentions'.

That is - putting as I did, about the longitudinal analysis --theory.

Even if the 500AD version of the Hobbit 'was written with the dreaded Chapter Five' 'winning riddle variation', what, still can we discern about "Ring-shness' (Proper noun here please) in the --implicit--text. Perhaps nothing. Perhaps not nothing. Perhaps some blend of the two.

Then - locate prose (from the Hobbit) to elucidate. AND

to address your other concerns. "Why would I go outside the Hobbit" to elucidate anything relevant.

Seriously, does that need a response? You know very well, I suspect that The prof had an ---obsession---- with publishing his primary love

The Silmarillion. In a multi-decade battle/exchange with Allen and Unwin, during which, there were indeed profound sanctioning pressures upon him to limit the scope of his narrative.

The anxiety in the Prof's letters about this, strikes me ***again*** as I review Letters, and I'm really surprised the point needs to be made.

Given such a background of anxiety and tussling with Allen and Unwin, for a Professor at a University, where you know very well there are significant torsions upon the self to present, argue, publish, write in a manner that very often deviates from how the core-self seek to write, are you saying that that background pressure was (not) operative (as) he wrote the Hobbit? I cannot -- support -- that tenet.

Ergo, why I interceded to introduce the background mythology - which of course -- was, as I stated, in place, partially at writing of the hobbit. Next post...a little more organised.

Ivriniel

12-04-2015, 01:05 AM

1.Precursor Short Comment on Context for an 'Overall' Statement about the Mythology

From the book, Master of Middle Earth, authored by Paul Kocher.

"Tolkien's technique of purposeful ambivalence is well shown too in the Mumak of Harad which Same sees fighting on the side of the Southrons against Faramir's men in Ithilien: '…indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the like of him does not now walk in Middle Earth; his kin that live still in the latter days are but memories of his girth and majesty'". That, is the author goes on to interpret that – extending ambiguity as implicit in the 'what' any beast or artefact of Lore. The author goes on to adapt that to dragons and says, for example, "Tolkien is especially evasive about Angmar's huge winged steed" and "all these half-mythological creatures of Middle Earth are meant to subsist partly in our world, partly in another in which the imagination can make of it what it will".
and

He has a "…lifelong interest in Astrology…" which the author ascribes to Tolkien's calendars (Appendix D) Menelvagor (the Swordsman –Orion) Red Borgil, in The Sickle – Mars", in a modern heliocentric account of Arda (p. 6 Mater of Middle Earth, author, Paul Kocher).

Context materials are for the reader to hold in the background whilst perusing subsequent materials.

2. Chronological Review of The Hobbit's Publication in Second Context:- the Pre-Hobbit Materials Grounded in the Silmarillion - The Professor's Multi-Decade Obsession

Certainly, originally intended as a children's story--in context. It was not written in a mythological vacuum and certainly, there were predating themes very clearly driving Tolkien's mental and imaginary processes, at the time he wrote the Hobbit (the first one). Prima facie as put in Master of Middle Earth

"The Hobbit as being drawn irresistibly towards towards the materials he had been assembling for several years past to tell the history of the earlier ages of Middle Earth So much so that glimpses crept into 'unbidden of things higher or deeper of darker than its surface: Durin, Moria, Gandalf, the Necromancer, the Ring.' For the most part Tolkien manages to keep unobtrusive these 'unbidden' incursions of serious historical matter not properly germane to the children's story, but they do colour the tale and perhaps help to account for those graver, more adult touches we have been discussing. Contrariwise, the writing of The3 Hobbit may well have served to crystallize Tolkien's thoughts about th3e historical materials, and particularly seems to have supplied a num er of ideas that found their way, transformed, into his epic.".

However, the themes elaborated upon in LotR drew on what Tolkien himself has stated that were joining themes. In particular Letter 153 dated the 7th of June 1955. The Necromancer and The Ring were--inevitable--choice of links. The germ of the story was the Necromancer and The Ring. He does say, in a letter that the Ring was not originally high in his thinking or central to the LotR mythology when the original version was written {however, see below. It is not clear where his mind exactly was when made the statement--Hobbit dates are diabolically varied--see below}. In addition, in Letter 35 he took this path, it states, partly because readers had clambored for “more about the Necromancer” (2nd of February 1939).

However, Character transmutation and lore transmutations are -- rife -- in the mythology, and, for example, I recall even on his death bed, (I forget the citation at this time) he commented on the Celeborn and Galadriel, in a latter intended addendum. I can't remember if this one went 'Celeborn was of Eldamar and grandson of Elwe' or 'Celeborn wasn't', I forget). In any case, the argument is that as he writes, ideas morph, and certainly, even in current published tomes, this transmutation is apparent in characterisations--implicitly--in multiple locations. No doubt, for example, the 'Strider' we all know as was introduced, was not the same 'man' in Tolkien's head, by the time he completed the narrative. Clearly, the Hobbit did belong in Middle Earth where his 'precious' Silmarillion also belonged, and clearly, the Hobbit was not intended as 'a prequil' but nevertheless was a quarry for materials for the professor in any case for LotR, and *also* by 'back to the Future-reverso-ramas' -therefore - a joiner also for the FA. This was really, editorial pressure that forced his hand, and because he loved his mythology so very much, the man invented means to use a tool -- a book, the Hobbit that he really didn't foresee as 'the tool', yet tool it was--to bridge works.

Yes, in the first Hobbit, Chapter 5 was a variation on the Chapter 5 in subsequent publication. And it is not correct to say that the Ring itself was not 'the possession' of the Necromancer in -- not correct to say 'the first edition'. It is correct to say that the Ring was made to belong to the Necromancer -- even in the first edition -- very early after the completion of the Hobbit. Stated another way, The hobbit was a seriocomic adaptation, but nonetheless, it served the purposes of bridging anyway. Two tools: the Necromancer and the ring, very quickly The Ring, and even for which version? 1938. There is actually more to this story as well. That is, no, the '1938' version was not 'all there is dates that are relevant'.

Here in 1933 4 -

C.S. Lewis writes to lifelong friend Arthur Greeves about The Hobbit. He said "Since term began [on January 15] I have had a delightful time reading a children's story which Tolkien has just written . . . Whether it is really good (I think it is until the end) is of course another question: still more, whether it will succeed with modern children" (They Stand Together, collected letters from Lewis to Greeves, ed. Walter Hooper, No. 183).

Now, in October of 1936,The Hobbit is retyped, Allen and Unwin read the manuscript in Decemer and suggest he complete it. Then, in September of 1937, and in fact, December of 16-19 - Tolkien starts writing the first chapter of the "New Hobbit", which will later become The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien submits The Father Christmas Letters and The Silmarillion for publication but they are rejected. December of 1937

There is a triple-lock of FA, Hobbit, Revisions and Ring-LORE in 1937 WITH precursor Hobbit writings in 1933.

So - when we interpret from Letters that (see upstream) his 'original' Hobbit ring, was a ring, not a Ring, it is quite already diabolically difficult to disentangle which 'Hobbit' we mean when the Professor makes the concession that he didn't have a link between the Ring and the Necromancer in mind, at first rendition.

Further, he does give us some materials to pacify us. For example, in the 1966 Prologue of The Hobbit, (Second edition) he provides the variation "Of the Finding of the Ring, " stating the 'Bilbo lied to his friends' addendum and Gandalf as very 'strange and suspicious' which seeded the doubt that the Ring was innocent. Of course by this time, we all know that Gandalf knew the story of Sauron's ring. This was about the wondering of the cause of Bilbo's deceit and to connect it dimly with the Ring (part of my materials for the longitudinal analysis, which is pending).

3. What Tolkien said about the 'Schizophrenic' Two Versions of the Hobbit (I'm aware that psychosis and schizophrenia are the correct use of the term. I'm borrowing colloquial licence.

Letter 128, 1st of August 1950, and about Chapter 5, the new version of Chapter 5, "Riddles in the Dark" hits the shelves. Apparently, this came as a suprise to Tolkien (see the Letter). Tolkien wrote the first version of LotR with the UNmodified Hobbit in mind. He had not heard from publicists (again, indications of his weariness about the ongoing struggle with publicists), and so, without the Hobbit being revised, Tolkien went ahead with LotR and adapted the original Hobbit to it. The sequel now depended on the earlier version. The revision, if published, would entail much rewriting of the sequel. It seems that the FORMER was his original intention, even though the second variation (revised Hobbit) could provide a more convincing joiner.

4. Three More Letters, Highlighting the "Transmutation Hypothesis"

Letter 26, dated 4th of March 1938, Turning to his own works, Tolkien said that he had reached the end of the third chapter in the sequel to The Hobbit, but that the story had taken an unpremeditated turn (Three is Company. That is but one chapter beyond the Shadow of the Past and again his mind was evolving the narrative. Then, In letter31 (24th of July 1938), he states the book should have come in in 1938 not 1937 for time for the sequel in 1939. And that the Hobbit was not intended a prequil, because he was preoccupied with the Silmarilloion. However, the context, always with his communications to the Publisher was about anxiety about delays, appeals to understanding, tacit complaint because his loved Silmarillion was not published. Then on the 31st of August, 1938, letter 33. About LotR flowing along.

5. The Silmarillion. What part of which bit was published or ready pre Hobbit.

The Lay OF Leithian was first published in 1928. It had 557 lines by August 23, 1925. The next date appearing is is two and a half years later, 27-8 March, 1928, at line 1161. Afterwards, it was written fully to 1769 lines, up to 2929. Apparently the dates are for copying out of the manuscript, not for their writing, so Tolkien may well have had quite a number of additional passages or concepts earlier before he put them together. It was abandoned in September 1931. However, in 1930 he completes a full draft of The Silmarillion, which is later printed in The Shaping of Middle-earth.

Edit: I edited 'sequil' to 'prequil' in the second last paragraph (I HATE HAVING TO BE THIS PRESCRIPTIVE I ***HATE IT***).

Ivriniel

12-04-2015, 01:27 AM

The information is incomplete. I have a social life and have to head out. I'll be back. There are quite a number of additional materials bearing upon my thinking in relation to the 'what' Tolkien 'did and didn't' have in his mind, at time of 'first' Hobbit.

Clearly, overall, however, we have FA materials bouncing about in his head. That means, reaching for inference beyond 'The Hobbit' about the ring, Ring or Rring or rRing *eyes crossed* is relevant.

Also, the "Longitudinal Hobbit Change" materials are not yet put down.

Enjoy your evenings.

and one re-quote of something important

The anxiety in the Prof's letters about this, strikes me ***again*** as I review Letters, and I'm really surprised the point needs to be made.

Given such a background of anxiety and tussling with Allen and Unwin, for a Professor at a University, where you know very well there are significant torsions upon the self to present, argue, publish, write in a manner that very often deviates from how the core-self seek to write, are you saying that that background pressure was (not) operative (as) he wrote the Hobbit? I cannot -- support -- that tenet.

Ergo, why I interceded to introduce the background mythology

Galadriel55

12-04-2015, 06:35 AM

[spoof]This 'poor sod', is so very 'sodden' about the 'sod' who would need to use the word 'sod' to make a rather 'sodden story' about

misprocessing posts.

Of course, that was exactly ShelGoliant's vomit, Unlighted, friendliness. It's so very Morgothian-isatation and welcome-Un-warmingly, a bit like, "I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve". Thank for your - cause - to have me - smiling - again as I post, and read as I write. The -- need -- to personalise -- by -- group alliancing -- is of course, a bit like primate politics. Wait :) I'm a primate, I'm referring, or um, refereeing to myself, or. errrm, uuuum, just enjoying making myself --laugh--Who has a sense of humour, would I suppose as well, unless, Morgaron, it's going to be the --idiot-- who would --seriously??? take it so --seriously--that there is -- a seriously, serious ---need --- to um, UnAttack hahahah poster.

You know, if you didn't like that, maybe you should have began by not ridiculing Morth's screen name. Just saying.

I've got about 300 posts here.

Given that this thread does not yet top 100, this hyperbole seems a little over the top.

Anyone who's read any of them, knows very well, that I so very seldom --care--to ground an argument in a specific date, or particularly narrow range of dates.

Sadly that's true, but I still can't see why others should suffer because of your lack of argumentation - with dates or otherwise.

Ivriniel

12-04-2015, 06:36 AM

I have some specific questions for Morthoron

1. Were you aware that the Hobbit had a pre-1937/8 variant as evidenced by CS Lewis's letter?
2. Were you aware about the state of the Lay of Leithian by 1933?
3. Were you aware that Tolkien's first adaption of LotR used the ***original*** Hobbit as its foundation.
4. Do you assert that the Prof didn't have ongoing anxiety and pressure from Allen and Unwin about publication deadlines (LotR), about despondency for repeated rejection of the Silarillion.
5. Were you aware that the Prof had a pre-Hobbit Silmarillion model?
6 The Devil's Number Do you assert that the 1933 version (typed and read by CS Lewis) or latter version was the one that Tolkien dissociates the ring from the Ring?

7. Did you known that Shelob ate the Silmarils? Or that Ungoliants wanted to eat the Silmarils, or do you assert that Earendil's refuse on Vingilot (what does he eat up there?) has Silmari 'glow' as he tosses out his bowel movements over Vingilot over Arda?

And Morthoron, I'm going to go back to the thread where I was accused of being a 'Troll', and after it, I received a PM pointing out that someone had been PM'd stating that someone else had gone too far.*

I don't remember if it was you who said 'I was a troll', but at the time, actually, I didn't even read it ahahahahah.

as I said, get a sense of humour and seriously, the funniest question: please respondS [Gollum] to number 7

Kind Regrds

*names and stones and fixed up tomes, and words that do not break bones

STAVROS

Ivriniel

12-04-2015, 06:40 AM

Legolas

12-04-2015, 10:51 AM

Let's keep discussion based on these wonderful texts and our interpretations, and not allow the thread to be consumed by petty jabs at people that disagree.

(Or chat speak and memes.)

:smokin:

Morthoron

12-04-2015, 05:15 PM

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

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.

Ivriniel,

My replies, following the post where William C. Hicklin refutes your assumptions, were in accordance with his refutations. The incredibly circumlocutious posts that you offered later, while they belabored the thread in both a longitudinal and latitudinal manner, are not cogent to the refutations, nor do they in any way bolster your original assumptions. Any reference to the One Ring or the effects of the One Ring were added in afterthought and are not part of The Hobbit as originally published, and The Hobbit had to be revised to make the appropriate plot points, and a backstory (i.e., that Bilbo lied about the "present" and the riddle game) was provided -- after the fact, as all documentation indicates.

The thought of Bilbo's magic ring did not have any significance to Tolkien beyond it being a folkloric motif, a handy device, for the furtherance of the original story. In fact, Tolkien says as much:

The Hobbit sequel is still where it was, and I have only the vaguest notion of how to proceed. Not ever intending a sequel, I fear I squandered all my favourite 'motifs' and characters on the original 'Hobbit'.

Even after slogging through an incredibly rambling and obtuse series of posts (with various internet jargon asides, acronymic oddments and Ungoliantine fulmination that makes much of what you write impossible to read), I can say without equivocation that you have not unearthed a single jot or tittle to aid in the furtherance of your point.

Ivriniel

12-04-2015, 05:34 PM

6. The Quest for Erebor

I've highlighted this entry, separately because it reveals somewhat of Tolkien's thinking and imaginary motivation that he bore upon writing LotR, after the Hobbit was released to the shelves. Chris states in UT that there are three variants of The Quest for Erebor, although no dates to any of the manuscripts are given. The letters "A", "B" and "C" he designates and in seeming chronological order. He states that the earliest version is complete and is entitled The History of Gandalf's Dealings with Thrain and Thorin Oakenshield, although it is "rough" (p. 327, George Allan and Unwin, 1980 Edition), but is a "much emended" manuscript for "complex and hard to unravel" (p. 327). From this manuscript B was made which had a "great deal of further alteration, though mostly of a very minor kind" (p. 327). B is entitled The Quest of Erebor, and also Gandalf's Account of how he came to arrange the Expedition to Erebor and send Bilbo with the Dwarves. Manuscript C, untitled tells

"...the story in a more economical and tightly constructed form, omitting a good deal from the first version and introducing some new elements, but also (particularly in the latter part) largely retaining the original writing. It seems to me to be quite certain that C is latter than B, and C is the version that has given above, although some writing has apparently been lost from the beginning, setting the scene in Minas Tirith for Gandalf's recollections.

The opening paragraphs of B (given below) are almost identical with a passage in Appendix A (III, Durin's Folk) to The Lord of the Rings, and obviously depend on the narrative concerning Thror and Thrain that precedes them in Appendix A; while the ending of 'The Quest of Erebor is also found in almost exactly the same words in Appendix A (III), here again in the mouth of Gandalf, speaking to Frodo and Gimli in Minas Tirith. In view of the letter cited in the Introduction (p.II) it is clear that my father wrote 'The Quest of Erebor to stand as part of the narrative of Durin's Folk in Appendix A.

Although dateless, the materials cited yield particular clues upon which I can continue to research and trace a little more about 'what Tolkien had bouncing around in his head, about the FA and his 'precious' (pardon pun) Silmarillion, in his multi-decade long obsession to publish that -- wonderful -- tome. :)

First of all, Gandalf did disappear for term when the Dwarves and Bilbo were moving through Mirkwood. Second, materials again support the Transmutation Hypothesis (see upstream) in relation to the prof's most vivid and evolving imagination, meaning and ideas about characters. Importantly, we should trace the history of the author's narratives about -- The Dwarves -- as well. Exactly 'what' he says about them in the Silmarillion, is quite relevant. We know the 'Aule' story. How much of the history of the Seven Fathers was rattling around inside his mind at the time he wrote The Hobbit is unclear. I have a feeling though, that if I review Dwarvish manuscripts, etc, and the tomes and their dates (sometimes the prof did supply dates), that I will unearth more about when he first decided The Ring-S were part of the Silmarillion mythology.

It seems to me also though that anything "Appendix A-ish" might be bridging materials assembled post hoc (in relation to the Hobbit). The 'might be' is important as, of course, quite a lot of the Appendices point to the background mythology and the Silmarillion. As always it is extremely difficult tracking anything down to a clear, crisp conclusion, but I suppose the research itself is the fun.

Ivriniel

12-04-2015, 05:38 PM

Ivriniel,

My replies, following the post where William C. Hicklin refutes your assumptions, were in accordance with his refutations. The incredibly circumlocutious posts that you offered later, while they belabored the thread in both a longitudinal and latitudinal manner, are not cogent to the refutations, nor do they in any way bolster your original assumptions. Any reference to the One Ring or the effects of the One Ring were added in afterthought and are not part of The Hobbit as originally published, and The Hobbit had to be revised to make the appropriate plot points, and a backstory (i.e., that Bilbo lied about the "present" and the riddle game) was provided -- after the fact, as all documentation indicates.

The thought of Bilbo's magic ring did not have any significance to Tolkien beyond it being a folkloric motif, a handy device, for the furtherance of the original story. In fact, Tolkien says as much:

Even after slogging through an incredibly rambling and obtuse series of posts (with various internet jargon asides, acronymic oddments and Ungoliantine fulmination that makes much of what you write impossible to read), I can say without equivocation that you have not unearthed a single jot or tittle to aid in the furtherance of your point.

This is quite untrue, and not at all refutation or contra-indication of the various points put about dates. I see only a summation post in elaborate well structured vocabulary, that yet does not summarise, respond to or tackle any of the materials, Morthoron, I have unearthed.

I will add, there is now a day and a half of research in ongoing discoveries, and those materials speak for themselves.

Kind Regards-

Is it rude of me to kindly ask you to please bear upon my presence here with some welcoming? Perhaps something to greet, or to thank, even if the arguments you cite and your opinion vary?

I would appreciate that at this point.

Ivriniel

12-04-2015, 05:47 PM

7. The Seven Fathers ( timing of 'numbering' non-accidental :) ) and Comments about Dates: When did Tolkien First Transcribe Materials about Azanulbizar

I've reserved a special place for that battle because it implicates and crosses over with/unifies:

a. The Mythology and The Silmarillion as it intersects with Ring Lore (not ring lore), in Eregion (West Gate) and Azanulbizar (East Gate) and the migratory patterns and grudge matches of -- both the Orc-and-Dwarves over the pre-Hobbit history. I suspect I'll unearth something dates in the various manuscripts that may assist to pin down the item of discussion about when the ring and the Ring first were a "Ring of Fire" in the Prof's imagination and head. Perhaps Sauron visited the Professor in a dream from The Void.

Just reading atm. I'll be back to edit this post

Basic gist--Dwarves are in the Silmarillion. Originally, two lines, not seven. And, I'm not going to lengthen this post, as I haven't been able to find much about the fabled Battle. I've found resolution to satisfactory levels in Numenor, (see downstream), to make the same argument. If I find a Dwarvish treasure trove, I'll be back to this post

Ivriniel

12-05-2015, 06:35 AM

8. Silmarillion Materials, Numenor, SA Concepts and Analysis

While I am researching entry 7 above, I've got the conjoined research about The Silmarillion at hand.

The Lays of Beleriand provide some really good bases upon which to explore 'which part' of the Silmillian the prof had ready as early as 1917 (Lay of Leithian). The Lay of the Children of Hurin in alliterative verse and the Lay of Leithian in octosyllabie couples. The alliterative poem was composed while the prof had an appointment at the University of Leeds (1920 - 1925) and he abandoned that for the Lay of Leithian at the end of that tenure "...and never turned to it again" (p. 1 of Preface). The 2000 line poem "...is only a fragment in relation to what he once planned....". It described many of the features we are all famililar with, such as Nargothrond, for example, Beren, Luthien, etc. He worked on the Lay of Leithian

for six years.

abandoning it in turn in September of 1931. However, it was submitted in 1937, 15th of November with the following tomes:

1. Farmer Giles of Ham.
2. Long Poem.
3. Mr Bliss.
4. The Gnomes Material.
5. The Lost Road.

Further, he also sent along with the Silmarillion submission, the Ainulindale, Ambarkanta (The Shaping of the World) and The Fall of the Numenoreans (see p. 364-365, The Lays of Beleriand, George Allen and Unwin, 1985 ).

In [I]The Lost Road (p. 8, Unwin Hyman Limited 1987), and on the subject of Numenor, the entry reads:

"...It must therefore have been something else, already existing when the Lost Road was begun, as Humphre Carpenter assumes in his Biography (p. 170): 'Tolkien's legenof Numenor....was probably composed sometime before the writing of 'the Loast Road, perhaps in the late ninetee-twenties or early thirties.'

Chris speaks of FNI and FNII as two variations on the manuscripts about Numenor, without being prescriptive about times frames and such, with emendations and overlays more the emphasis between the two.

A read of the transcript cites all the golden oldies. Lindon, the Last Alliance, Sauron's rise in Middle Earth and Numenor's pride, yadda yadda. Sauron, Mordor, Elendil, Gil Galad. Except, Sauron is referred to as Thu as well as Sauron (as he is in the original Silarillion), and "This belongs to the pre-Lord of the Rings period" (p. 34).

So, when we juxtapose these materials (Last Alliance, Numenor, pre-1937-Hobbit) with earlier researched materials identifying the Hobbit as having a pre-1937 existence, as early as I think, 1931 (see communication between CS Lewis and co commenting on the draft), there is -- six years -- for the prof to be pondering the intimate linking of the prequel to the sequel.

So, in that 6 (six) years, I find it increasingly unlikely that the author did not -- once -- move the ring to the Ring, ahead of actual publication as, certainly, a tenable plot line.

I acknowledge that the prof himself stated that originally it was a ring. But, the timelines between authorship, submission, editing and publication of the 1937 first tome are very, WIDE. I do not find any explicit prose on this subject (about what the professor was actually thinking in the timeline between typing up and first publication) --ANYWHERE.

We seem to have forgotten, that in ye olden days, first a man wrote it down on paper with pen. Then a man typed it up on a typewriter. It's not like the modern day were we have the liberty of saying 'writing/submission/publication' with narrower timelines.

So, whilst Of the Rings of Power and the Second Age in the Silmarillion, I haven't even touched yet, thus far, even to here, there's more than enough latitude in varied context to put a lid on the monolithic assumption that 'first publication' means the same thing as 'first conceived' as a Ring.

And, I never, prior to this series of entries, ever said as much as I have here, about latitudes of timelines. If you look upstream, I conceded a great deal more. The most I ever stated about the ring becoming the Ring, prior to my research venture was that it seemed to me that by December of 1937, it had become a Ring.

Certainly, not discordant really, as was attributed (Morthoron and Galadriel, in particular) where -- apparently -- I wasn't aware that it was a rrrrr-ing originally and that it was a Ring originally and after December of 1937.

Please find where I have said so.

And certainly, in Chapter II The Shadow of the Past (when it was written), certainly, we have the LotR plot about RRRRings, although the conceived title (as I stated much, much earlier) was LotRRRRRRRRR (December 1937 cut in stone). And Ringwraiths appear in WRITING (I don't know when in HIS HEAD they appeared) but there is a letter I cite (I think) that puts Nazul-ian birth as sometime after 1937.

'rrrr' to replace typographical 'R' - apologies for the error
'RRRR''s added and last sentence varied.

Ivriniel

12-05-2015, 06:38 AM

You know, if you didn't like that, maybe you should have began by not ridiculing Morth's screen name. Just saying.

Given that this thread does not yet top 100, this hyperbole seems a little over the top.

Sadly that's true, but I still can't see why others should suffer because of your lack of argumentation - with dates or otherwise.

Galadriel, this is what you state is the case, even as late at the subsequent 6 items, headed upstream. You also seem to have dismissed, misprocessed or fused information I put down about dates for 1937. It seems you have --implicitly--asserted (not explicitly, implicitly, or tacitly) that I sustained a ring not Ring position for post 1937. Can you please find where I have said so. And just in case an argument then reads 'no no no, that's not what I said', then, alternatively.

Where is it that I seem to be disagreeing with in relation to the main point (made on the thread by -- not just me, but several --), about 50 posts prior, about rings, not Rings and when this [transition of ring to Ring] occurred? Am I making myself clear? I wonder if I am or not. After I hear from you (I'll wait a day or so) and if I haven't, I'll go on to take off where I left off:

The Longitudinal 'Hobbit Character Shift' theory (and I realise it's just a fun idea, and I'm not really married to it. It's just having fun. I actually have very much enjoyed researching because it's delightful reading Tolkien's words about the Ages in the various Tomes I have in my library.

Kind Regards

And I apologise to the readers.

Really, it was Ungoliant who ate the Silmarils, not Morogoth. And that Erebor was chained to Thangorodrim (when Fingolfin cut off his hand above the wrist), Erebor was rescued, resolving the blood feud between the Dwarves and the Elves. That's why Finarfin DID move house to -- MORDOR -- and it's all a trick.

Sauron's real name is Frodo Baggins. Laugh at me please. Because I do. I couldn't possibly enjoy any posting of this kind of technical nature without underscoring, that it was Fatty Bolger who was the Wight at Carn Dum. Technical posts are really HARD to read and enjoy. So enjoy Unreading them. Silmarien married Ar Pharazon, but what happened was, they had a fight, and so, Ar Pharazon got miffed and thought he was leaving Silmarien, but he accidentally headed West, hence Silmarien made it to Elendil, just in time. Back to the Future she went.

And really - that's kinda how Tolkien wrote. If you think about :) enjoy

Ivriniel

12-05-2015, 02:19 PM

And this for Morgothrond before I post the 'next bit' about Longintidinal de-The Hobbit-isation-of-the*r*-ing (ie Bilbo bearing the 'R'ing, not 'r'ing) hypothesi.....erbole.

Ivriniel,

My replies, following the post where William C. Hicklin refutes your assumptions, were in accordance with his refutations. The incredibly circumlocutious posts that you offered later, while they belabored the thread in both a longitudinal and latitudinal manner, are not cogent to the refutations, nor do they in any way bolster your original assumptions.

Really?

The thought of Bilbo's magic ring did not have any significance to Tolkien beyond it being a folkloric motif, a handy device, for the furtherance of the original story. In fact, Tolkien says as much:

This one gets two 'reallies'.

Really Number one: Really - I haven't already said this, about as many times as Queen Beruthial had cats? and

Really Number two: Really, you really want to really say that, rather than an Unreally? (i.e. to borrow a Tolkien-ean fun way of 'backup up/out' of a dead end argument. As I often say, Feanor was UNfriends with Galadriel--forever (which pre-Facebook used to sound really hilarious to me n my kin, and friends who read the mythology. We used to laugh until crying about some of the linguistic nuances of the works, and Ungoliant's UNlight was 'verily or nigh' (choose one or the other) example.

Even after slogging through an incredibly rambling and obtuse series of posts (with various internet jargon asides, acronymic oddments and Ungoliantine fulmination that makes much of what you write impossible to read), I can say without equivocation that you have not unearthed a single jot or tittle to aid in the furtherance of your point.

Particular nuances and efferfecence-es (spelling mistake for fun--Baggins-es) I think you'll find Morthoron that many of my 'incredibly rambling and obtuse (you know OBTUSE means 'STUPID' not 'TANGENTIAL' don't you) have some little echo of what I loved about Tolkien's etymological and linguistic sense of humour.

And, yes, I'm the 'intelligent idiot' aren't I for labouring - just for you - to actually get out a cogent (sorry, it's cogent, Morgathrond) position statement. I'll summarise the heuristic.
"
...put a lid on the monolithic assumption that 'first publication' [of The Hobbit] means the same thing as 'first conceived' as a Ring [in the absolutist sense, as NOT BEFORE December of 1937]...

Guache self-quote, I confess, though, I do wish to highlight the important point 'stupidly' that I developed in the post series. And I add, that the donging-on-the-head of the --assumption-- does NOT preclude the conjoint, co-existence of the concurrent assumption, that

the ring was a ring in the ring that Bilbo found, in Hobbit Version minus 1000, written 3500BC (ie the 1937 Hobbit) and became a Ring (temporal causalisty loops give me a headache (*Captain Janeway, Voyager--omg, my brain hurts) by DECEMBER of 1937.

This, in my 'stupid' argumentative series means that -- contrasting the two assumptions -- there is a six year window of ***DOUBT*** about which (oh my god, my head hurts) hypothesiss-es hobbitses applies. That is, the Hobbit was READ by CS LEWIS sometime in or around or prior to 1931. We do not know 'which' 'Hobbit' Tolkien was referring to when he states that his ring was the ring not the Ring in LETTERS, for example (and I have QUOTED which LETTER he did say what he did).

Kind Regards to you, Morthoron. Thank you for the fun.

Morthoron

12-05-2015, 07:10 PM

And this for Morgothrond before I post the 'next bit'...
I've edited your post for clarity by omitting most of your blurb. I'll leave in the juvenile misspelling of my name that you have continued unabated throughout your posts, much like your incessant maundering. You do yourself a disservice by rambling, mitigating what might be clearer debate. Concision, thy name is not Ivriniel.

This, in my 'stupid' argumentative series means that -- contrasting the two assumptions -- there is a six year window of ***DOUBT*** about which (oh my god, my head hurts) hypothesiss-es hobbitses applies. That is, the Hobbit was READ by CS LEWIS sometime in or around or prior to 1931. We do not know 'which' 'Hobbit' Tolkien was referring to when he states that his ring was the ring not the Ring in LETTERS, for example (and I have QUOTED which LETTER he did say what he did)..

I refer here to another error in your research. I have underlined it for ease of reference. Humphrey Carpenter, in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, writes the following forward to a letter dated January 4, 1937 (Letter 9, to Susan Dagnall, Allen & Unwin Ltd.):

Tolkien wrote the greater part of The Hobbit during his first seven years as Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford. A text was in existence by the winter of 1932, when it was read to C.S. Lewis, though at this stage the typescript apparently lacked the final chapters, and broke of shortly before the death of Smaug.

So, the letter of C.S. Lewis you refer to, written in 1933, recalled Lewis reading The Hobbit in the winter of 1932 (or, per Lewis, a bit later in that same winter, January 15, to be exact). This was The Hobbit that was eventually published, and the one Tolkien was reading to his children -- not some other, phantom Hobbit floating about like a garish specter in or before 1931 with visions of malign Rings created by Dark Lords dancing in the children's heads.

In any case, and beyond your blatant error, there is no indication here, and you have not provided anywhere, that the magic ring was anything other than a magic ring, a folkloric motif for which Tolkien was fond. Like talking troll purses. Or magic diamond cufflinks that fastened themselves. Or trolls that turn to stone at sunrise. Or caves with magic keyholes. Or glow-in-the dark-when-orcses-are-around Elven swords. Or moon runes. Or animal table servers. Or spectral white stags. Or disappearing fey banquets. Or talking Odinic ravens. Or a black arrow that always returns to the rightful bowman.

In addition, not only did Tolkien have to rewrite the character of Gollum to fit the later, revised story of his birthday present (which, as we know from reading the actual, original version of The Hobbit, Gollum was gladly willing to give to Bilbo because, of course, it was not the One Ring), Sauron had to be added as well:

...I had no conscious notion of what the Necromancer stood for (except ever-present evil) in The Hobbit, nor of his connexion with the Ring. But if you wanted to go on from the end of The Hobbit I think the ring would be your inevitable choice as the link. If then you wanted a larger tale, the Ring would at once acquire a capital letter; and the Dark Lord would immediately appear. As he did, unmasked, on the hearth at Bag End as soon as I came to that point.

As soon as I came to that point. This indicates that indeed the connection was arrived at while he was writing Lord of the Rings -- at Bag End to be specific. As I stated previously, Tolkien got a great idea (as great writers often do) to incorporate the magic ring and the Necromancer into a greater tale of the One Ring (given now a capital letter, as Tolkien stated) and the immortal Maia Sauron, for whom he managed at great expense to barge down the river from the Isle of Werewolves in the 1st Age. Because, as we also know, the 2nd Age hadn't been invented yet.

And this is where I leave this addled conversation. I have no intention of wading through the mire any further. I believe I have proved my point without further elucidation -- or an adversary's erring, unproven assumptions that remain unproven after many posts.

Ivriniel

12-05-2015, 08:15 PM

So, the letter of C.S. Lewis you refer to, written in 1933, recalled Lewis reading The Hobbit in the winter of 1932 (or, per Lewis, a bit later in that same winter, January 15, to be exact). This was The Hobbit that was eventually published, and the one Tolkien was reading to his children -- not some other, phantom Hobbit floating about like a garish specter in or before 1931 with visions of malign Rings created by Dark Lords dancing in the children's heads.

In any case, and beyond your blatant error, there is no indication here.

My point exactly and makes no difference anyway. The YEARS in between are where I -- sustain -- my position.

Apologies for 31-ing instead of 33-ing.

However--the 'blatant error' is merely vocabulary to distract, Mothoron. It's imprecise and evidences misunderstanding of the basic premise outlined.

I've noticed a tendency for your arguments to use -- extreme -- or -- exaggerated -- interpolations. For example...

I can say without equivocation that you have not unearthed a single jot or tittle to aid in the furtherance of your point

I must say though, I laughed so hard when I read it, (I was on my IPhone in a public place at gym) and I couldn't suppress my laughter. I was almost crying with joy. It's just somehow really, really, funny. As in, at least I think so.

Um, as for the rest of your post - it does strike the eyes and evoke more chuckling. Um, I'm not trying to assert

you have not provided anywhere, that the magic ring was anything other than a magic ring, a folkloric motif for which Tolkien was fond. Like talking troll purses. Or magic diamond cufflinks that fastened themselves. Or trolls that turn to stone at sunrise. Or caves with magic keyholes. Or glow-in-the dark-when-orcses-are-around Elven swords. Or moon runes. Or animal table servers. Or spectral white stags. Or disappearing fey banquets. Or talking Odinic ravens. Or a black arrow that always returns to the rightful bowman..

Actually my only other primary point (the Longitudinal, not Latitudinal 'circumlocious' addenda) hypotho-bagginses. I also really loved 'Ungoliantine fulmination' as another belly-laughing moment.

Yours Ungoliantine-esely

Iv-gonial, Ungol-niel, wait, UnVriniel, erm, Silmari-riniel, um, I've lost my identity! Look what you've done to me.

Ivriniel

12-05-2015, 08:18 PM

PS, what's a 'latitudinal' argument? I've not heard the term. It entered the place in my mind where's there's wormhole that just starts my convulsive laughing. I saw, for example, 'lines of latitude - draw - over a post. Or - variation in width of the actual dimensions of a physical post. I'm sure you must mean something conceptual though. Please educate me.

Kind Regards

Iv-Goliant

I just finished wiping actual tears of laughter with a tissue from my eyes--and that post on the Arkenstone thread - about Balgrogs skiing - oh no...the laughing has started again hahahaha

Ivriniel

12-05-2015, 08:47 PM

And

@Morthorom

About my 'blatant' error - I'll spell out what it's Ungoliantine-ish (it's only an 'ish' not a full blown Ungoliant as in your processing error) about my -competing- hypothesis - to spell it out...

is NOT about 'variations in text' between the 5000 BC (1933) and 1937 First Release VersionSES (Bagginses) of the HobbitS.

I've - how many times, Mortharon - mentioned

TEMPORAL - then causality loops.

My competing hyperbola is about TIME (N-O-T---C-O-N-T-E-N-T) in variations in WHAT the prof WAS v WAS NOT thinking about in relation to r-ings when he made his LETTERS comments, CONCEDING (as I have conceded) that it became a R-ing AFTER (time/slip) WRITING, the Dreaded Wight of Bag End.***

So - have another look at my heuristic, upstream (and vary the number of years by two, down from six, to four - apologies - you see, I'm really just like you - an Ungolai-rian in me, as well.

Yours KINDLY and smilingly

***The Dreaded Wight at Bag End is the 'revised' tome, that 'would' or 'could' or 'might' or 'should' exist, WERE The Hobbit's LORE -- your word -- AMPLIFIED -- to be more cogent, or narratively consistent, or prescriptively aligned with, or inferentially non-maleficently yet incrementally similar {but certainly not without 'circumlocutIONS' - not circumlotuANIONS as in chemistry} to LotR. (highlighted for a purpose, in the pending 'longitudinal theory'.

Armenelos-Imrahil-Gilmith-VRINIEL

Ivriniel

12-05-2015, 08:53 PM

...put a lid on the monolithic assumption that 'first publication' [of The Hobbit] means the same thing as 'first conceived' as a Ring [in the absolutist sense, as NOT BEFORE December of 1937]...

...And I add, that the donging-on-the-head of the --assumption-- does NOT preclude the.....

Competing one - yours - about content, not timing.

Ivriniel

12-05-2015, 11:57 PM

Just when I thought I'd unearthed all the funny bits, I found ANOTHER -

So, the letter of C.S. Lewis you refer to, written in 1933, recalled Lewis reading The Hobbit in the winter of 1932 (or, per Lewis, a bit later in that same winter, January 15, to be exact). This was The Hobbit that was eventually published, and the one Tolkien was reading to his children -- not some other, phantom Hobbit floating about like a garish specter in or before 1931 with visions of malign Rings created by Dark Lords

***D-A-N-C-I-N-G***

in the children's heads.

HAHAHAHAHAHA - 'garish spectres' of 'phantom' soorrrrry - belly laughing - of Ungoliantines, (u spelt spectER wrong, wait, so did I) ...with 'visions of malign RRRRings created by hahahahaha DARK LORDS (nooooo, Necroman-GOLIANTS) hahahaha dancing IN the Children's HEADS.

MY STOMACH HURTS !!! STOP IT hahahshshs

At the least, we ARE in SOMEONE's heads, even though we haven't yet made it Into the Prof's HEAD, which is what my ***obtuse***'heuristic-ses' hahahaha was trying to achieve.

I can see, you've 'evolved' your position to 'agree' hahahaha with me hahahahaha

Ivriniel

12-06-2015, 04:34 AM

For Morthoron. You said:

In addition, not only did Tolkien have to rewrite the character of Gollum to fit the later, revised story of his birthday present (which, as we know from reading the actual, original version of The Hobbit, Gollum was gladly willing to give to Bilbo because, of course, it was not the One Ring), Sauron had to be added as well:

*yawns* tired. Addressed, more times than the number of Cats the Queen Beruthial had. I refer, to example 'the dreaded chapter 5' upstream in my tittle-ingly stupid rants. Also address, oh my god, Morthoron, seriously, read again. I think I argue at three times that LotR (first rendition) referenced the UNvaried-UNsighted (woops uncited, no, I like Unsight, better hahahaha) HOBBIT version minus 1000, 2500 BC (i.e. the 'earliest one', and I use that date, 2500BC, to go back 'just in case' early enough, to be sure we know that 'earliest' Hobbit, means the garish tittles cited in the 1937 book). I knooooowww about his letters thingy. It's INCLUDED in my materials.

YET (and this bit you've still not absorbed) - Tolkien - HAD submitted the varied Hobbit manuscript (version 10,000, 3,500 AD, ie, the lovely one we all know) with all your yes, yes and yes, 1. birthday present 'gift' to 'deceptacon' lie thingy to Gandalf (the dreaded Chapter 5) WELL BEFORE he handballed draft one LotR to Allen and Unwin. I ***state*** several times this point, for another point, not your point, or the other point, you know the other one, but for these two points

1. Tolkien was battle weary, anxious and -- avoided -- updating publicists with variations in his ideas in regards to WHEN (TEMPORAL hypo citied) the Hobbit with spectres, garish of malign children's Rings filled posters' heads with Ringlore and Ash Nazg-Smeagaol, GOLL.....IANTs of ***DANCING*** hahahaha DarkLords.
2. Stuff about Hobbit Rings emerging ANYWAY in pre 'Dreaded Chapter 5 revisions' of the revised Wight at Bag End.(recall, the Dreaded Wight at Bag end was the UN-children's version of the amplified Hobbit, in the correct prequel, fore-ordained. The Dreaded Wight at Bag End - was it - the Ring, or Bilbo of Frodo - or Fredegar-Gollum?

Points 1. and 2. highlighting my materials about the points Mortharon makes (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703144&postcount=107), that were already made here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703105&postcount=94) and then summarised, again, in series of specific questions, some gross or so, upstream (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703108&postcount=97) also, ***ahead*** of Morthron's assertions, here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703144&postcount=107), claiming that I said Balrogs retired with needlecraft.

What I said was (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703105&postcount=94):

Yes, in the first Hobbit, Chapter 5 was a variation on the Chapter 5 in subsequent publication. And it is not correct to say that the Ring itself was not 'the possession' of the Necromancer in -- not correct to say 'the first edition'. It is correct to say that the Ring was made to belong to the Necromancer -- even in the first edition -- very early after the completion of the Hobbit. Stated another way, The hobbit was a seriocomic adaptation, but nonetheless, it served the purposes of bridging anyway. Two tools: the Necromancer and the ring, very quickly The Ring, and even for which version? 1938. There is actually more to this story as well. That is, no, the '1938'*** version was not 'all there is dates that are relevant'.

And Morthoron, do read the whole post. It is clearly speaking in turn.

***Canon-ITE TEST. You FAILED. You DIDN'T NOTICE THE ERROR!!!!! hahahahaha

Ivriniel

12-06-2015, 04:53 AM

**pauses**

I'm not posting the Longitudinal Latitude-grid-post-width theory about Bilbo-s amped up variant in the book, The Dreaded Wight at Bag End (the spectral black variant of White garish spectre-Stags where the Hobbit ideas -- morphed -- in the prof's head).

No necessity to cite the summary heuristic I developed. Though I'll add it in. You can do this extra analysis -- as I always SAID -- whilst CONCEDING the -- various whatevers whoever wants to say whatever about them about the 1937 Hobbit. The stuff of the 'longitudinal' bit, will use our fabled, known, lovely, Dreaded Chapter 5 revisions.

Not doing this, until the Balrog travels to Erebor through lava conduits to migrate the Silmaril that belonged to .....Maedhros....who tossed it away, coz it burned his hand.

(ie - let's stamp out one item at a time. I'm waiting to see if Morthoron or anyone else has anything else to say about the items upstream. I'll wait a day or two. If nothing, I'll add in the new stuff.)

Andsigil

12-06-2015, 05:21 AM

Actually my only other primary point (the Longitudinal, not Latitudinal 'circumlocious' addenda) hypotho-bagginses. I also really loved 'Ungoliantine fulmination' as another belly-laughing moment.

Yours Ungoliantine-esely

Iv-gonial, Ungol-niel, wait, UnVriniel, erm, Silmari-riniel, um, I've lost my identity! Look what you've done to me.

So, on another forum where I spend time, a member posted a random story about his morning ritual, which he calls "The Terminator", and which he felt the need to share with everyone. He told this story right in the middle of a thread about boxing, of all things. Nothing remotely resembling a segue led up to the story; he just threw it in the middle of the thread.

He described how he crouches down in the shower in the classic "naked terminator traveling through time" pose, with his eyes closed for about a minute (visualizing either Arnold or the guy from the second movie) and he starts to hum "The Terminator" theme. Then he slowly rises to a standing position and opens his eyes.

He said that this ritual helps him to proceed through his day as an emotionless, hard-core cyborg, and he ended by saying that the only problem is if the shower curtain sticks to his leg as he steps out; it ruins the fantasy for him.

After reading this outré non-sequitur I was fairly confused for a while. And then I logged in to the Barrow Downs Forum, read what I quoted above, and "The Terminator" story made a lot more sense.

Ivriniel, thank you for clearing this up for me.

Ivriniel

12-06-2015, 05:37 AM

*warm smiles*

John Whatshisname was pretty awesome. I grew very (happily) cross-eyed during the Terminator mythology. I loved the chin-ups scene with the mother. Favourite bit. No-one bar me seemed to like John Carter -- I just absolutely loved it --

Anyhooz :) Temporal Hyperbola about times and Time Loops *wipes brow* (phew, so far, so good. I might, if things keep going smilingly, be able to do the longitudinal.....hmm, I need a better word. It's too turgid, that.)

Kind Regards

Ivriniel

12-06-2015, 06:47 AM

Morthoron, I've found an - it's not quite an 'error' - what you've done is diverting of focus. This interrupts the pause.

You said, actually, watch:

Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 23, 17 February 1938, to C.A. Furth, Allen & Unwin

The Hobbit sequel is still where it was, and I have only the vaguest notion of how to proceed. Not ever intending a sequel, I fear I squandered all my favourite 'motifs' and characters on the original 'Hobbit'.

It's going too far to call it 'devious', and that would be ***wilfully*** nonsensically, UNfun of me. And dark lords as you so rightly pointed out, dance with -- slippers -- and may I add -- the Lidless Eye, must have had ***some*** means of bobbing about in children's minds.

So, it's certainly not 'devious' of you to cite that item. But, as you know, the TITLE LotRRRRRRRR (with The Dreaded Wight at Bag End prequel) not Lotr (with the Hobbit prequel) was -- in place -- by DECEMBER of 1937.

Ergo, your point, actually, inadvertently highlights exactly what I mean on two fronts. The first is -- you can't trust the letters he wrote Prima Face on ***some*** areas where those letters are to the Publisher.

He was anxious, fraught, at times in poverty, pressured by horrific deadlines at the then University system, and by other -- no doubt -- malevolent egoic interactions amongst his cohort. He wrote to Unwin and always, beleaguered and the context was to 'beg borrow or steal' more writing time for LotR. And recall, he was disheartened, probably disenchanted about the repeated rejection of his beloved manuscript, The Silmarillion.

Sooooo '...vaguest...' notion - does not impute - 'ring' - and with I would add, high likelihood.

It means 'give me space, give me a break, you rejected my works, I'm gunna need a bitta time to get this show on the road'..

AND

Do indeed ponder the likelihood that he was also -- passively resentful -- and quietly, probably even resentfully figuring out how he could -- USE -- the opportunity to sneak in/get in/squash in, as much as he could of the FA and SA.

Now - that is not at all a topical assertion. If you look at my post (not that one, but not that one, but you know that one) you'll see it repeatedly asserted that he was 'lengthening' 'extending' 'distorting'

TIME.

AND IN FACT, HE AND CS LEWIS DIVIDED UP ANOTHER PROJECT. CS LEWIS BANGED ON ABOUT SPACE, AND TOLKIEN ABOUT TIME, IN THEIR ORWELIAN 'EELOY/MORACK' OBSESSION /LIKE THINGMEBOB IN ANOTHER WRITING PROJECT....

HE DISTORTS TIME IN TWO WAYS IN THE MYTHOLOGY. ONE IS TERMINATOR-ISH (THANK YOU TO THAT AWESOME POSTER TO HELP ME OUT) AND THE OTHER WAY - 'RACK OFF ALLEN AND UNWIN - I NEED TIME' (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703105&postcount=94)

Ergo - The Dreaded Wight at Bag End.

I wonder, seriously. With that massive pressure upon him - fiscal, editorial, emotional - from publicists, during such a -- hideous -- time in history (people dropping dead all around him and he lost so many of his friends in WWI), WHAT he was thinking between 1933 and 1937.

Seriously, he and CS Lewis, used to meet on Fridays (you know this) do discuss their loved works, to find beauty in their lives, while the world went totally crazy around them. I cannot possibly NOT imagine that Necromancers were not the Thu/Sauron of SA/Numenor (see my posts please), probably even AS he wrote it (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703105&postcount=94) and also THIS one for Numenor (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703130&postcount=104). What he said in Letters - who quite knows exactly - his unique motivational emphasis depending on recipient.

However, YES - it does seem, that it was ring - initially. But certainly not as late as 1938. The date range for his 'thinking' was, of course, between 1933 to 1937 and with the triple lock of FA/SA materials/Hobbits/Dark Lords BY 1933.

So - in conclusion, I'm pretty sure I did say that Balrogs swam through lava conduits, carrying Silmarils too and from in Albatross migratory patterns, but underground, but I'm still not sure if they sew needle craft between Morgoth's Dagor thiny's? Perhaps that's why Luthien got in Thangorodrim. I mean, she and Beren were flying with winged clothes, so, perhaps they chatted about a needed repair at the gates.

Kind Regards

Ungol-viel

Pitchwife

12-06-2015, 04:10 PM

Wait a minute, I've got it. Tolkien first drew a connection between the Necromancer and the Ring while working on a sequel to The Hobbit in late 1937 / early 1938, but then went back in time to 1933 and told his younger self all about it, is that it?

And he did so with the help of Tom Bombadil, who is actually a Time Lord who travelled through all the history of Arda before he was marooned in Third Age Eriador together with his companion, Goldberry - which is how he could have seen the first acorn etc. and Treebeard could still be the eldest living creature, because, well, Tom came from the future in his house, which is of course a Tardis with its chamaeleon circuit intact, or how do you suppose it was able to conjure up a room with four mattresses and matching slippers for Frodo and his friends?

Sorry, Ivriniel, life is too short for this. I'm out.

Ivriniel

12-06-2015, 11:06 PM

Wait a minute, I've got it. Tolkien first drew a connection between the Necromancer and the Ring while working on a sequel to The Hobbit in late 1937 / early 1938, but then went back in time to 1933 and told his younger self all about it, is that it?

In response to the ? (question mark), No. Elaborating:

It's to go -too- far into the terminator conceptions to put it that way, Pitchwife, though the movies assist to clarify an idea. Tolkien did not write a time-travel series. He was very interested in time travel though, as we (perhaps) see in echoes of Alboin's ponderings in our world, as his mind cast back to Numenor from Earth. Middle Earth as three ages, predating 'real modern history' is not a new idea. He also had a writing project about it (time travel) with CS Lewis who focussed on Space.

The extent to which I draw upon the Time feature makes the point about the real time between 1933 and 1937 primarily. Because The Hobbit was in readiness, basically (almost) by 1933, I'm making the argument that in that 4 years (and you can add 1 or 2 if you're being liberal), that's a lot of real time to ponder Necromancers, rings, even Rings.

The trouble is, the Letter/s in question don't point to how the 'Terminator-esque' authoring style kicked in to bridge the Hobbit with LotR. There were other choices. I suppose he could have 'greed-ised' the Arkenstone as an artefact of secret evil, undetected. Or varied the Hobbit to greed-ise the Arkenstone. Or any such varied plotlines.

The extent to which I speak of 'Tardis' 'Terminators' etc goes to the human mind in writing novels. You don't have the final plot done in your head. Some I suppose do. Most authors probably back-edit, or add plots, etc as they go. Tolkien had messy notes. He says in 1938, that what should have happened is that:

was said upstream (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703105&postcount=94)under as
item 4.:

4. Three More Letters, Highlighting the "Transmutation Hypothesis"

Letter 26, dated 4th of March 1938, Turning to his own works, Tolkien said that he had reached the end of the third chapter in the sequel to The Hobbit, but that the story had taken an unpremeditated turn (Three is Company. That is but one chapter beyond the Shadow of the Past and again his mind was evolving the narrative. Then, In letter31 (24th of July 1938), he states the book should have come in in 1938 not 1937 for [edit of prior entry: 'in' not 'for'] time for the sequel in 1939. And that the Hobbit was not intended a prequil, because he was preoccupied with the Silmarilloion. However, the context, always with his communications to the Publisher was about anxiety about delays, appeals to understanding, tacit complaint because his loved Silmarillion was not published. Then on the 31st of August, 1938, letter 33. About LotR flowing along.This letter series is important. Tolkien saying "it should have been" 1938 means something. Specifically, just four examples are given. These are by no means the spectrum of internal motivations that can be imputed (this one is specifically for Morthoron) in the paralingual text (or in the paralinguistic features) of the text*.

a. 'in hindsight, Unwin and Allen, I should have contacted you earlier, to let you know that I had an idea about the Hobbit, and can we -- pull -- the publication and -- I have this variation that I should have put in, some time ago, but didn't, and it fits better'. ***A 'hindsight/Inspired Post-Hoc basic imaginary motivational system***

or

b. 'it should have been 1938, because I needed time'. For whatever reason, an idea came to me sometime earlier. ***A 'time-pressed/stressed/I avoid you'*** motivational construct. Common in relationships with publishers.

c. I didn't imagine though that it was going to matter, thinking that when I finished it in 1933, I hadn't expected it was going to get published, and when I first gave it CS Lewis, I hadn't much considered necromancers and rings, but it has since occurred to me that there are two obvious joiners: Ring and Saurons, but you know guys (Allen and Unwin) it's just so difficult communicating with Editors, and it would have meant lots of expence and typing, and there's a war raging. London just got bombed and I'm worried about my family, so I didn't prioritise re-working the 1933 manuscript into a the prequel or -- any of its various possible structures, until life just overcame me with its popularity. ***An 'avoidance/expense' motivation to explain a delayed response***

or

d. Look guys (Allen and Unwin), you're just really difficult to negotiate with and youZ have rejected my Silmarillion so many times, I just hate asking you for anything. Here, have my bedside tale. It helped calm my kids during the war, but I had my Silmarillion quite handy in my head, and really, a Ring was quite early on in my mind, but RACK off publishers, and do what you want with the book I DON'T want to really passionately publish, and GIVEN THAT you DON'T want to publish the mythology, WHO CARES, whether or not I turn it in a Ring. I hate you publishers. Tired. Good night. ***a RESENTMENT/REJECTION/ABANDONMENT/SHAME motivational system. I go for this one, because he was a stoic, reserved, Anglo Saxon of the then Christian mind. Lots of shame. Lots of fear of social outcasting for deviating from the dominant social milieu and

e. Ungoliantisations of Manwe's backside, hindsighted, through Eonwe's purple hair. ***A IVRIENIEL IS STUPID BUT STILL NAUGHTY SOMETIMES motivation, because - maybe you guys one day will find out, what life and death experiences I've been through, and narrowly survived to live with a sense of humour.***

They're just three (hahahaha - has anyone picked up that I deliberately, do this, just a weeee bit) options (three options). I understand in Letters he talks about having 'used up' all his 'favourite' Lore things in the Hobbit. But that's just really not quite 'true'. Obviously not. The Silmarillion was concurrently ready and available in 1933. As IF an English Professor socialised by the then Anglo Saxon traditions at sparingly sharing internal feelings, in a STOIC world was GOING TO EVER share his private thoughts to a publisher or to anyone, deeply, except PERHAPS, his wife, and son. PERHAPS, Christopher knows only somewhat of the story.

We just don't know exactly 'when' he morphed the mythology? of the Hobbit {and - recall that it really goes the other way - he wrote a 'dancing Dark Lords' version of the Silmarillion for his children. Really, it was the Hobbit that was 'morphed' --AWAY--from the extant pre-existent mythology, not the other way around. He didn't 'morph' the Hobbit's mythology TO BECOME Silmarllion-ised. This goes to Morthoron's 'amplification' theory. That's a whole nuther item}. It's possible that he knew by 1937 {that there was a R-ing in his head, while the actual manuscript was being PRESSED} and hadn't known how to halt the publication machinery. It's not 2015, where halting and re-starting publication can be done in a day.

And as I said, the Silmarillion was concurrent. He 'goblin-ed' instead of 'Orc-ed' and 'Bard-ed' instead of 'Numenorean-ised'. But Orcrest and Glamdring and Gondolin and Gundabad, and Numenor - all already in his head - and written in the 'voice of narrative drama' not children's tales.

So - the ring. We just don't know exactly when from1933 onwards he morphed it, internally, into Sauron's 'reason' for Numenor to return to Middle Earth in the Last Alliance to defeat him.

The Last Alliance, was a concept, cut in stone in his pre-Hobbit materials.

for Morthorond. Perhaps you might like to comment on paralinguistic facets of textual analysis. I take it from your reasoning style at the Boards that you've read a great deal and that you are a very gifted scholar. Your vocabulary is extensive and exemplary. Otherwise, no word - no brainer - the thread's nearly done.

Ivriniel

12-07-2015, 12:35 AM

And he did so with the help of Tom Bombadil, who is actually a Time Lord who travelled through all the history of Arda before he was marooned in Third Age Eriador together with his companion, Goldberry - which is how he could have seen the first acorn etc. and Treebeard could still be the eldest living creature, because, well, Tom came from the future in his house, which is of course a Tardis with its chamaeleon circuit intact, or how do you suppose it was able to conjure up a room with four mattresses and matching slippers for Frodo and his friends?

Sorry, Ivriniel, life is too short for this. I'm out.

Well, it's a funny post, actually. I'm not belly laughing, but it's funny. It seems to me that it's Morthoron who for some strange reason, tickles my funny bone. It's a mystery, to me actually, and I'd love it if you used the metaphor in the funny style (it's funny :)) to reconnect with the materials.

Yes - life is too short - I decided, that, which is why I stopped being upset about thread materials that disagree with my opinion.

As my wonderful set of [funny] friends say - who I see often - 'opinions are like assho**s everybody has one'. I actually just spent the morning with a friend, who asked 'why is your voice croaky at the moment, Stav'. My reply "oh my god, I've never laughed so hard in a very long time. I'm enjoying this site where people are just so funny sometimes about canon-propriety.

It's wonderful, isn't it, having a life. And I don't know - are you suggesting only you have one away from here, or, um that I don't have one because I've written so much? Or that varying your posting style to Tardis to echo others' presence-ss (my precious, that it's time say 'I'm out').

I don't care, really. So, it's funny Pitchwife. I normally don't spend OH MY GOD - two days researching stuff. But, I did. I did it, to respect Morthoron, actually. Strangely, this has been lost on this stream. I understand that she/he really does appreciate -- CANON -- and so, I'm the 'idiot' (obtuse, I am was in her/his words) that - enjoyed - being told I was an idiot. Enjoyed being spanked, yanked, pushed, prodded, and were I younger, I'd have done what I no longer do.

Spitfire in reply. I curbed it. Started to allow it. Responded to content, sent thank you's, kind regards-es, and allowed it all. So here I am - at the other side. I normally would NEVER take such a time and delight in research and outpouring.

Yet, Pitchwife, these boards ARE part of my life. They are part of yours. And, that doesn't mean they are ALL my life. That's nonsense. And it's also nonsense to imply or suggest that any Canonite who has spent their career or LIFE dedicated to the Canon world to suggest it is NOT a life for those folk.

So, I appreciate your comments. I've enjoyed meeting you. I really liked the tie to Stephen Donaldson. And--I don't care, if you're cross at me. I'll live, and I'll allow it, and I'll enjoy being the -- good -- person I am.

Kind Regards - please re-engage, if you like. If you don't, as I said - I don't care. This thread's almost done. I do note, though, that between posting each round, there are an additional several dozen, sometimes several hundred reads.

So, that's another thing about words. I don't care, that I do care, that is to have a care, about care -- IN FACT -- to care, enough -- not to care, when - to care less, is to care more, and that's the funny thing about -- Grace. Whether or not you're a Christian, Grace is an aspirational -- term. That's why "...I like less that half of you half as well as you deserve...".

So, I'll take that as a good sign. I'm going to summarise the findings, in a crisp concluding post, with all the best bits of the -- JOURNEY.

I believe that people meet for a reason. I also believe our reason for meeting, Pitchwife is much more elusive than a gripe or two. Bear with me.

Kind regards

Iv

Ivriniel

12-07-2015, 06:09 AM

Information Summary Post: Key Themes and Examples of Information

1. Lalaith's Premises (awesome topic) (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=688211&postcount=1)

a. Arenstone-ian stealth in stealing, stones of staining, the heart of Dwarves - Dwarvish Rage is Thorin's province. 'Moral Outrage, treacherous Bilbo'.
b. Thranduil is the scavenger - 'creature to Crebain - Thranduil-ian craven'.
c. Bilbo, during the Battle of the Five Armies, "preferred on the whole to defend the Elven King". What exactly has Thranduil done to deserve this loyalty?

2. Morality-Legality Distinctions - Propriety and Personality & Cannon

a. The Moral Share/Legal Share distinction. Thraduil-ian-craven - beware! (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=688214&postcount=2)
b. HUMOUR - Legal-ese Rear-ends, and unstoppable cerebral bearing! (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=688218&postcount=3)
c. HUMOUR - Awesome! (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=688279&postcount=4)
d. Balancing motivations - Pride and Loss - Inverted across the Races (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=688645&postcount=13).
e. Nice Synthesis By Galadriel! (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703078&postcount=76)
f. Posts 59 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=702882&postcount=59), 61 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703031&postcount=61), 94 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703105&postcount=94), 101 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703118&postcount=101), 104 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703130&postcount=104), and meh, 75/25 weighting to post 80 (it's the restating that weakens it. Once is enough) (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703174&postcount=119).
g. rIngs of power and Rings of Power - power begone and Power begone - the ring (not the Ring) is everywhere (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703216&postcount=124).

3. Arkenston-ean-Dwarvish-Greed-Beware!!! Ash-Nazg Arkenstone, Durbataluk! Arkenstone, Arkenstone, you are EVERYWHERE

a. Some stone in the ground glows a bit like glowsticks at a Nighclub, but more than 1/14th of the wealth to only some. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=688287&postcount=6)

4. Serious, Thoughtful, Considered -

a. Insights about Warring Peoples

I). "The Common Enemy Unites Us". (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=688289&postcount=7).
II). Where 'stealing' to one sight, is heroism in self-sacrifice to another. Urgency to Stop Killing - primary motivation. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=688642&postcount=12)

b). Awesome Redirective Focus Post: Focal Distinctions: The Canon Analysis V And/Or the Narrative Analysis Distinction AndOr Hindsight/Foresight Positioning (at a particular date) During Post Construction (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703214&postcount=123)

5. Hiding under rocks :) Or Enjoying Being Flattened as the Rock you thought you were hiding under (and clinging to) started rolling down the Hill...QUICKLY.

a. Hiding without a magic ring is hard! (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=702841&postcount=38).
b. Backpeddling - after being flattened, correctly. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=702875&postcount=58)
c. Funny how 'little red squares' have this way of appearing at times. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703067&postcount=69)
d. "I don't like ....me.....do you like .....you. Didn't work! The Rock Rolls faster and faster down the hill. I'm getting very flat! (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703076&postcount=74)

6. Really Bad Posts (Falls from Grace-the Devil's Number 666 - or Melkor Upon Us From the Void - and Grace Repair - Quick Quick Quick)

a. The Lidless Eye is literally hot. Annatar is 'hot'. Context Blunders and Unthoughtful Thunders. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=702865&postcount=51)
b. Ramblings (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703102&postcount=92) and Ramblings. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703103&postcount=93)

7. Humour I Missed Along the Road - and Special Thank YouZ (A Liberty Taken by Me for Cutting the Post after Summarising)

a. Awesome Post - Thank you kindly for your manners. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=702846&postcount=42)
b. Awesome Start Here Galadriel - A Belly Laugh Upon Me as I Type! Kind Regards. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=702867&postcount=53).
c. "....Once again your strain position...." it starts AGAIN, the WORMHOLE EFFECT, ANOTHER BELLY LAUGH, Kind Regards Mor.....gg...Morthor_n! Phew! (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703053&postcount=63) .
d. "...oh and I did paddle the turgid straits and navigated the frothy....." ungoliants, "...upstream". Another Awesome one. :) (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703062&postcount=65)
e. "...you may think your gibberish you are typing..." GRINNING/HURTING STOMACH AGAIN - Funny Bone alert. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703065&postcount=68)
f. "...getting closer to ungoliant...." - Kind Regards Morthoron :) (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703070&postcount=70)
g. "...circum.."lociously, deliciously, Ungoliantines "...circumlocutious...", "...latitudinal..." arguments, "...rambling...obtuse", migrating patterns of Subterranean Silmarils, Skiing Balrogs, and Balrogs that retire with Needlecraft. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703117&postcount=100)
h. I've edited your post for clarity by omitting most ......" of it but! "...I'll leave in the juvenile misspelling of my name" Kind Regards Mor- *coughs..struggles....squirms...* "-thoron. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703144&postcount=107)
I. Kindness, and warmth. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703158&postcount=115)

And -

MY FAVOURITE POST (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703092&postcount=87) and
SECOND FAVOURITE of Morthoron's Cited. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703155&postcount=112)

12/09/2015 @ 7:31 am (Aus-EST): a) Integration of Posts 123 thru 125 & b) Reorganisation of Post

Ivriniel

12-07-2015, 07:33 AM

Response to Posts Deferred For Comment - More to Say With Canon-ites

Post 59 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=702882&postcount=59)
Post 61 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703031&postcount=61)

Unfinished Business

1. Please, threadkeeper Lalaith, if you want, claim ownership to the Summary Post and modify it!!! It's a really cool idea we all used to do at a really fun Geek Forum that was also ultra serious and ultra fun, all at once. Unfortunately, it's gone now. :) I realise it's not about me, but everyone. I just wanted to 'kick start' the idea. "Threadkeepers" at the other Forum all used to do it.
2. The thing, that was the original thing, long long ago, I was going to say, at about post minus 10. The "Bilbo Changed" theory (even though and despite, and so it is, and well it is, and Baggines, that it's a look at Hobbit Version -- "that new one I read" (Alias, Title - Terminator Series Adaptation, "The Dreaded White at Bag End") - "Longitudinal Theory about Bilbo's Transmutation". Four Premises:

a. Hobbit's Baseline tendencies for Evil/Treachery/Deception/Greed.
b. Bilbo's Baseline tendencies.
c. How did he change, along the way.
d. Did this influence his 'treachery' to handover the Silmari...Arkenstone.

Or said to the Canon-ites

Where did the prof spot 'R..ing'-consistent themes in the Dancing Dark Lords in Children's Head's (Fairytale) version of Hobbit - ORIGINAL or REVISED - and the key word is **retrospectively**?

Mithadan

12-07-2015, 08:51 PM

Regardless of the commotion that this thread has engendered, there is an interesting theme that is worthy of discussion here. The Ring (or ring) is the bridge between The Hobbit and LoTR. The question of whether Bilbo has come under the effect of the One (by concealing the Ring/ring from Gandalf, by lying about it/ by taking/stealing/earning the Arkenstone) is, in reality, a matter of subjective perspective.

What is your focus? Do you view the texts from the perspective of the (historical) drafter? Do you hone in upon the fact that The Hobbit was completed before the "bridge" of the One Ring was conceived as the basis for interpreting Bilbo's motives? Is this a valid view?

Or do you view the texts from the perspective of the (post revised Hobbit) reader, looking to perceive a smooth transition between the works and, more importantly, a uniform tale from Gandalf's first arrival at Bag End to Sam's sad return to Bag End?

If the latter, then it is entirely possible that the Ring ( as opposed to the ring) may have influenced Bilbo's choices. Just days ago I noted that Isildur, having possessed the Ring for a matter of hours, could not make the right decision: to destroy the Ring. Bilbo, possessing the Ring for a period of time even longer, could have been influenced by its evil animus.

If the former, then Bilbo possessed a curiosity, a ring of invisibility. Interesting, but unimportant except as a device within the tale. The ring could not have influenced events. It had noting to do with Bilbo's choice regarding the Arkenstone or his concealment of the ring from Gandalf. It was not THE ONE.

Which is it? Let's proceed (if at al) in a civil manner, please.

Leaf

12-08-2015, 08:01 AM

If the latter, then it is entirely possible that the Ring ( as opposed to the ring) may have influenced Bilbo's choices. Just days ago I noted that Isildur, having possessed the Ring for a matter of hours, could not make the right decision: to destroy the Ring. Bilbo, possessing the Ring for a period of time even longer, could have been influenced by its evil animus.

Even if you choose to interpret the works of J.R.R. Tolkien as continuous and uniform world, you'd still have to explain why the Ring would play a part in Bilbo's decision to take, keep and give away the Arkenstone. And that's where the argument looses me. Exactly what decision is supposed to be influenced by the Ring? The initial and spontaneous impulse to take the Arkenstone in the first place? Keeping it a secret? Or giving it away to enforce a peaceful compromise?!

For the point of the ongoing discussion I'll take the following as a starting point:

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

It seems you argued that the Ring may (or may not) have influenced the whole package, from the taking to the giving away of the Arkenstone. Besides, it seems to me that you are implying that Bilbo conceived the plot with the intention to harm the Company and put them in a disadvantageous position. I have a few problems with that. Bilbos motivation for his plot, to give the Arkenstone away, is very well fleshed out in the Hobbit. He wanted to put an end to a deadlocked and dangerous conflict. He just wanted to get home. To achieve that he gave the only thing away which could be used as leverage against Thorin. He didn't put "the dwarves" on the back foot. He chose to give up his own share and reward to ensure a reasonable and peaceful solution to the given situation. The dwarves would have had the same amount of Gold, Bard would have his fair share and nobody would have to die. I try really hard to understand how the Ring of Power, the pinnacle of evil, could have had any influence in this motivation. Does anything comparable happen in the LotR-novels? The Ring usually doesn't support altruistic and problem solving behaviour. I fail to see how the Ring could have had any effect in Bilbo's decision to give the Arkenstone away. Bilbo doesn't get anything (no power, no wealth and no honor) from his plan, except for the possibility that he may see his beloved Hobbit-hole again. For me, that's as atypical for the kind of influence the Ring has on people, as it gets.

Yes, the Ring does alter the personality and actions of a person. And yes, Bilbo's deed could be (unfairly, imho) interpreted as dishonest and treacherous. But I still don't see a connection between those two things. The Ring influences his owner in a very specific way. It's not like it reinforces immoral actions in general. During the course of the story (LotR) we don't see Bilbo, or Frodo, becoming bad persons, or acting more and more selfish and immoral. At worst they get defensive and delusional when it comes to the question of their claim to the Ring. But usually they are still the normal, generous and kind Hobbits they've always been, despite the fact that they have kept the Ring for such a long time.

Mithadan

12-08-2015, 01:47 PM

Inziladun

12-08-2015, 02:17 PM

But candidly, the language used by Tolkien suggests another explanation. "Bilbo's arm went to it drawn by its enchantment." One can also refer to the poem The Hoard found in Adventures of Tom Bombadil where he discusses the power and bewilderment of treasure. The original title of this poem (it was first published in 1923 in a Leeds University magazine) Iumonna Gold Galdre Bewunden, meaning Gold of Men Enmeshed In Enchantment (See Annotated Hobbit, p. 288). This is a recurring theme in Tolkien's works, the love of treasure as a motivator towards either evil or bad decisions. I tend to favor this explanation of the Arkenstone incident.

I think back to the time at Bag End where the Dwarves sang their song before setting out.
There, Bilbo listened and was "enchanted" to some extent, sharing the love the Dwarves had for jewels and such, out of character for most Hobbits in itself.
He'd had much time since then to hear the Dwarves talking about all that treasure, and had also spoken with the dragon who stole the hoard. I favor those things as influencing Bilbo's behavior.

Leaf

12-08-2015, 02:18 PM

Zigûr

12-08-2015, 02:39 PM

Yes, to agree with Inzil and Leaf, it seems thematically appropriate to me in The Hobbit that Bilbo's taking of the Arkenstone is consistent with the book's own discussion of the allure of precious things. This theme, I would argue, doesn't require the Ring to be malignant in any further capacity to function in the text.

What is perhaps effective about this in The Hobbit is that the Arkenstone needs no particular "magic" to operate in this way. Its "enchantment" seems to be its own lustre and desirability.
I don't know of any case in which the Master Ring creates or amplifies greed for worldly things.
I suppose you could consider the effect the Seven had on the Dwarves ("The only power over them that the Rings wielded was to inflame their hearts with a greed of gold and precious things, so that if they lacked them all other good things seemed profitless, and they were filled with wrath and desire for vengeance on all who deprived them."), but on the other hand that seems to be a peculiar effect the Great Rings had on Dwarves specifically, such that it couldn't be stated definitively that the One Ring would necessarily have the same effect on Hobbits.

On the other hand, it's probably a good thing that the Ring of Thrór was lost before Thorin could inherit it - imagine how much more unreasonable he might have been had he possessed it!

Ivriniel

12-08-2015, 03:09 PM

@ Leaf Hi there Leaf :) Nice to meet you! I've not 'met' one of your posts yet, so I thought I'd start with this hello, but I'll come back (to this post) to back edit, after the 'hello', in a day or so.

(I loved your post. It's deliciously inventive (in its analysis of my content) and I'm delighted to see your comments).

Kind Regards

Iv-goniel

@ Mithadan - what an awesome summation (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703214&postcount=123). I've updated the Summary Post (to put some new stuff in).

@ Reader.

Pondering textual analysis. in meantime

1. Text from the perspective of the historical drafter with focus upon:

a. Some ideas about Tolkien's original draft notes of LotR (see Letters and those for which he has written LotR to conform to Hobbit pre-sequel 'ring-to-Ring' - 1937 version).
b. The significance of that. The professor must have had some ideas, himself, about how to 'multiply infer/interpret' new or bridging ideas from the very one and the same text - himself. This I think goes to the 'Evil Animus' point, made, upstream. I'll --add--here the dormant or hidden Animus of the Ring - after some 3000 years and while Sauron/Necromancer was == weaker.

2. A focus upon the Hobbit-V2 and the Allen and Unwin LotR we all know in the 21st Century on the Shelves (which was where I entered this conversation, many moons ago, and then added in a 'mini research project' where I unearthed stuff I could add in, in 1.)

a. The 'Ring'* in the Hobbit. Despite it being a children's story, in its inception, nonetheless, with its edits in the now Un-ungolianted (or de-Ungolianted, or just UN-golianted) (i.e. revised Chapter V) of the delightful 1966 Edition and so on. (i.e. the chapter that corrected the Tome has been, no doubt, a controversy of various kinds in history. I'm sure Tolkien had a headache at times. Imagine his wrath? exhaustions? when he typed up early materials for LotR, to conform to Hobbit 1, and then hears back from editors 'na, na, na, John. You need to fix the Hobbit and re-work LotR'. I've cited Letters and such (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703105&postcount=94), in a post that found this stuff**.

Perhaps I've misinterpreted? I'm not a trained Tolkien Scholar, so I'm happy to be corrected. Does anyone know more on this topic?

*noting that in lower case - as a ring, in the book, observes the 'duality' of this textual item, all the way through to the 21st century.
** left blank :)

Back later (to this post) Kind Regards

Galadriel55

12-08-2015, 04:08 PM

Let me clarify. It cannot be doubted that Bilbo's decision to turn the Arkenstone over to Bard was motivated by good intentions. But the decision to take the Arkenstone and later conceal it after Thorin began searching for it is a bit out of character for Bilbo. Could this be the Ring's effect (from the perspective of a coherent story)? Perhaps. He thinks to himself that Thorin's offer that he could pick and choose his share might not extend to the jewel. Thorin later names the Arkenstone to himself, but Bilbo does not come forward.

I want to throw out another couple ideas in regards to this. First of all, regardless of what motivated Bilbo to take the Arkenstone in the first place, I always had the feeling that after that moment of weakness he never really meant to keep it, he just didn't know how to come forwards about it without enraging the Dwarves (who would predictably be disproportionately mad at Bilbo for taking the stone and would not appreciate the effort of conscience and morality that it took to overcome the barriers to breaking the truth to them voluntarily until it would be too late - because that's what happens nearly every time Bilbo pulls off a trick). Thus, I don't see the Ring as a factor at all in keeping the Arkenstone secret. It would be natural for anyone who knows what the Dwarves are like with their gratitude and their jewels to keep something like this quiet; but also, it seems to me that Bilbo didn't want to keep that secret and was looking for an alternative way out of the situation. He does feel rather guilty about the whole thing, and most likely regretted taking the darned stone in the first place. Having the stone - and especially keeping it secret - ain't giving him any pleasure at all.

I can see how it can be argued that the Ring had a hand in pushing Bilbo to take the Stone, though I don't think that's the prime motivator. I suppose it's not out of character for the Ring to whisper thoughts like "It's just fair, you deserve it, what do you owe to them, you're not technically breaking your written contract, you're still a good Gollu... hobbit, it's the Dwarves who are the mean ones and the cheaters". But Bilbo knew when he took the stone that he just wants to feel this way to justify taking the stone. He is aware that he's making excuses for himself, and sad excuses at that. Besides, he's at the point where he appreciates unwritten bonds above written contracts, and he knows that he violates something much more important than the legal definition of "1/14 of the profits". He knows that, and he still takes the stone, because of his own inner weakness. He conquers it, of course, and he wouldn't ever be likely to repeat that mistake, but it was a moment of his own internal weakness.

Finally, I want to bring up a general pattern seen throughout the legendarium in regards to jewels and riches, a pattern in part borrowed from real-world mythologies. The most beautiful things inspire greed and almost unconscious acts of unnecessary harshness. Personalities become distorted, people become cruel and unsharing, and those who aspire to claim some of those treasures evoke a very similar response to the reaction of Ringbearers when someone broaches the subject of taking away the Ring. The First Age is filled with such examples - the Nauglamir, the hoard of Nargothrond, the Silmarili alone could fill up several pages of analysis from their creation until Maglor throws the last one into the Sea. The Arkenstone (and the rest of the dragon hoard as well) is an extension of the same pattern. The examples mentioned above by other posters (Bilbo enchanted by the Dwarves' song, his hand drawn by the stone's enchantement) are referring to this aspect of treasure. Bilbo's action is very much continuous with this pattern, Ring or no Ring - an external source isn't needed to be present to give Bilbo the push. Moreover, ascribing this action to the Ring takes away from the concept of greed and the enchantment of the treasure. Treasure does not need to have this effect anymore, this power, if it's just the Ring at work. If we assume that the Ring is a prime motivator in Bilbo's choice, or the prime reason for his weakness - it is belittling the beauty and power of the Arkenstone both as the element of the story and as a symbol. I think that goes against what the rest of the story has been trying to convey to the readers about this stone.

I think it's possible that the Ring had a hold on Bilbo, but I do not think that in this case it was a motivator. In any situation, his actions seem perfectly explicable without the presence of the Ring, so even if its influence was there, it was too subtle to be a main factor. I cannot think of any such instance, which is why I am asking you - is there any point in the story where Bilbo makes a choice that is aligned with the "desires" of the Ring, that he would not have made without it? If a good examples of that is out there, then the flip side can be argued. As it is, though, it seems that there is no strong evidence to support the Ring influence case.

Lastly, since this has been mentioned previously: yes, Isildur wasn't able to destroy the Ring after possessing it for only a few hours, and Frodo sure didn't like it when Gandalf chucked the Ring into the fireplace. But both of these situations involve some threat to the Ring - and quite a direct threat at that. On the contrary, in Bilbo's case the Ring is quite safe and happy. None of his plans appear to involve any harm (direct or indirect) being done to the Ring. If Bilbo had to give his ring to Bard and Thranduil rather than the Arkenstone - oh how the story might have gone differently. But he wasn't, so there isn't much reason for a burst of activity from the Ring.

Pitchwife

12-08-2015, 04:28 PM

Thank you, Mithadan, for nudging this meandering/maundering thread back on track.

I've said most of what I have to say about the Arkenstone up in post #77 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=703081&postcount=77), but I think I concur with Leaf and Inzil that Bilbo's love for beautiful things, together with the stone's own enchantment, was quite enough motivation for him to take it. Let's also not forget that the whole treasure - including, if I'm not very mistaken, the Arkenstone - had long been lain on by a dragon, and a dragon's hoard has a glamour that fascinates and awakes covetousness even more than 'normal' gold, does it not?

You know, I find that the whole scene of Bilbo taking the Arkenstone reminds me a bit of Pippin taking the palantír of Orthanc from Gandalf. Two hobbits, two stones wrought with great art in days long past, one scintillating with light, the other dark, but glowing with a heart of fire. And both hobbits grab the shiny mystery, even though both know they shouldn't. Was it just the Took in Bilbo that made him take the Arkenstone?

Now as for keeping the stone secret even after Thorin had claimed it for himself, I originally thought that quite suspicious behaviour, but Galadriel55 made a valid point that Thorin was showing increasing signs of dragon gold madness at that time, and Bilbo may have been (rightly) afraid that Old Oakenshield would blow up in his face if he learned that Bilbo had found the stone and said nothing. And I think it's fair to assume that Mr Baggins hadn't remained totally untouched by the treasure's glamour himself, as Mithadan already said.
________________________________________

Iviriniel, as for Tolkien's first drafts for LotR: it's a while since I read The Return of the Shadow, Vol. 6 of of The History of Middle-earth, in which they're all published, but IIRC he started with Bilbo leaving Bag-End for more adventures but no clear idea what these would be. One idea was that Bilbo had used up all his gold and was looking for more, driven by the dragon sickness, but he (=JRRT) found that idea unsatisfying. At some point he decided that the hero wouldn't be Bilbo himself but a younger relative of his (long named Bingo but finally renamed Frodo), accompanied by some of his friends/cousins who also went through some wild name changes, but he still had no idea what the adventure would really be about.

At that point, I think, he sat down to consider which motives he hadn't used up in TH, and, ending up with the Necromancer and the r/Ring, jotted down a note (some time in late '37/early '38, but don't pin me down on it): "The ring - where does it come from? Necromancer?" As we know, that was a fruitful idea, and everything started to gel. He first cnsidered the ring harmless if used for good purposes, but harmful if kept too long, but by and by the ring became the Ring, the One, ash nazg durbathulûk,

Once that was clear, the original version of TH Chapter 5, where Gollum was willing to give Bilbo the Ring, became, of course, untenable, because the Prof's conception of Gollum's character had changed and he realized that Gollum could never have given up his precious. So the original Ch. 5 was explained as being a cover-up by Bilbo. Only in the 1966 edition of TH, IIRC, was that chapter told as it was now, after the change, conceived to have really happened, with Gollum planning to murder Bilbo and "Thief! Baggins! We hates it forever!"

Does that answer any of your questions?
_______________________________________________

(x-ed with Gal55; our dogs are bonkers tonight.)

Galadriel55

12-08-2015, 05:07 PM

You know, I find that the whole scene of Bilbo taking the Arkenstone reminds me a bit of Pippin taking the palantír of Orthanc from Gandalf. Two hobbits, two stones wrought with great art in days long past, one scintillating with light, the other dark, but glowing with a heart of fire. And both hobbits grab the shiny mystery, even though both know they shouldn't. Was it just the Took in Bilbo that made him take the Arkenstone?

Ah! *facepalm* How could I leave this out of my example list? That's a great one, thanks for bringing it up.

Ivriniel

12-08-2015, 05:24 PM

<--snip-->Does that answer any of your questions?<--snip-->

Thank you for the assistance :) "Earthfriend," breathed Pitchwife, "what will you do? (I'm going to from time to time resurrect that ole' thread of yours. It's gunna be one of those 'got new idea' once, that 'keep bouncing back to life' :)

It's very appreciated Pitchwife, ur response. I'll be back soon to (back-edit this one), as well. I've got to head out, but saw ur light on, and so quickly dropped in.

: I used to GM at Forum (about 2 years 'way back when' as GM (Game Master), not moderator. Hard going, without powers to curb, one had to invent on-post means. Thread started with my joining (by choice) the most unpopular group - the Half-Elven Foundation. We, over time, made it a 5000 post thread. As you can imagine - skirmishes and blowouts sometimes - but it was a vibrant busy place soon enough. I've always said it's 'coming back' that's best-est of all :) I'm going to update my sig, and put out a call to 'em. It was pre-Facebook/social media. We all lost each other when the Boards closed around 2005. I found one of them recently.

@Mithadan (is this allowed here? or....how strict is the 'on-topic' standard? the 'ps' thing, and variations, was what some of ways we spoke at the Foundations.

Pitchwife

12-08-2015, 05:26 PM

Let me return the compliments:
First of all, regardless of what motivated Bilbo to take the Arkenstone in the first place, I always had the feeling that after that moment of weakness he never really meant to keep it, he just didn't know how to come forwards about it
This! Haven't we all been in situations like that? I have, at least. You do something you know isn't the best of ideas and mean to put it right after a while, but the situation is never quite right for doing something about it and it gets worse the more you procrastinate. Giving the stone to Bard must have been a relief.

in Bilbo's case the Ring is quite safe and happy. None of his plans appear to involve any harm (direct or indirect) being done to the Ring. If Bilbo had to give his ring to Bard and Thranduil rather than the Arkenstone - oh how the story might have gone differently. But he wasn't, so there isn't much reason for a burst of activity from the Ring.
This, I think, is also a good point. Of course the Ring would be working on Bilbo to corrupt him, but that would have been a slow and subtle process, slowed further by Bilbo's nature - which surely wasn't sterling but basically decent - and the mercy he had shown Gollum, so it wouldn't necessarily show any noticeable results in the short time span covered by The Hobbit.

Inziladun

12-08-2015, 05:57 PM

Galadriel55

12-08-2015, 07:11 PM

Leaving aside the RL points about the Ring as conceptualized in The Hobbit vs. LOTR, can we look at another Ring-bearer to see if it seems to have pushed him to any treachery?

Frodo began his time as a Bearer after Sauron's power was greater than at the tine of the Battle of Five Armies, after the latter had returned to Mordor and openly declared himself.
Is there any indication on Frodo's part of him betraying his friends, or wanting to? Any suggestion of an usual greed that does not pertain to the Ring itself?

I generally agree with that point, but just to play devil's advocate, there are a couple counter-points. Firstly, Frodo was aware of the effect the Ring can have on people, and was consciously resisting its pull. He was also among the stauncher people, willpower-wise, to inhabit Middle-earth. Therefore, he might be less susceptible to some of the less subtle influences of the Ring, as he can recognize them and suppress them.

Let's take a glance at yet another Ringbearer, who - like Bilbo - was unaware of the Ring's nature: Smeagol. Within seconds of seeing the thing, he kills his best friend to get hold of it. He then proceeds to sneak around, steal things, be generally nasty to those around him, ruin every relationship he ever had, and get kicked out of his family with shame. While killing Deagol is explained by the Ring evoking possessiveness, and getting chucked out is explained with the formidable grandmother, stealing and sneaking are the aspects of Gollum's behaviour I want to emphasize. He wasn't a model boy before the Ring either, but it seems that such a rapid downfall was augmented and sped up by the Ring's presence. Perhaps it was the power of invisibility, which Smeagol applied to crooked uses (and the new ability just enhanced what character was already present), but here I think the argument that the Ring corrupted Gollum seems just as compelling. Or rather, I should say that it looks like an even mix of the two. There is certainly a meanness in him to serve as the base, but the decline seems too rapid to be of Smeagol's doing alone, and some habits, like muttering or speaking in plural about oneself (really, referring to himself and the Ring) aren't explained by Gollum's initial personality.

So go figure. :D

Inziladun

12-08-2015, 08:45 PM

I generally agree with that point, but just to play devil's advocate, there are a couple counter-points. Firstly, Frodo was aware of the effect the Ring can have on people, and was consciously resisting its pull. He was also among the stauncher people, willpower-wise, to inhabit Middle-earth. Therefore, he might be less susceptible to some of the less subtle influences of the Ring, as he can recognize them and suppress them.

True enough. Yet, though the reader is given some insight into Frodo's thoughts after he obtained the Ring, there is no mention of his having to suppress the desire to to evil, or even ordinary meanness.

While killing Deagol is explained by the Ring evoking possessiveness, and getting chucked out is explained with the formidable grandmother, stealing and sneaking are the aspects of Gollum's behaviour I want to emphasize. He wasn't a model boy before the Ring either, but it seems that such a rapid downfall was augmented and sped up by the Ring's presence. Perhaps it was the power of invisibility, which Smeagol applied to crooked uses (and the new ability just enhanced what character was already present), but here I think the argument that the Ring corrupted Gollum seems just as compelling. Or rather, I should say that it looks like an even mix of the two. There is certainly a meanness in him to serve as the base, but the decline seems too rapid to be of Smeagol's doing alone, and some habits, like muttering or speaking in plural about oneself (really, referring to himself and the Ring) aren't explained by Gollum's initial personality.

The Ring works with what's there in a particular person, sure. It enhanced Sméagol's mean, sneaking (I'm sure he'd been called 'sneak' many times before, explaining why he bristled so when Sam said it ;)) nature. We don't really know of the time frame involved in the transformation from Sméagol the Stoor into Gollum though, do we? It might not have been a terribly short time. A few years at least, maybe.

Bilbo lacked the 'basic materials' for which the Ring had an affinity, though. He was not a sneak or a thief by nature, and I think it unlikely the Ring influenced his decision to take the Arkenstone.

Galadriel55

12-08-2015, 09:02 PM

True enough. Yet, though the reader is given some insight into Frodo's thoughts after he obtained the Ring, there is no mention of his having to suppress the desire to to evil, or even ordinary meanness.

The Ring works with what's there in a particular person, sure. It enhanced Sméagol's mean, sneaking (I'm sure he'd been called 'sneak' many times before, explaining why he bristled so when Sam said it ;)) nature. We don't really know of the time frame involved in the transformation from Sméagol the Stoor into Gollum though, do we? It might not have been a terribly short time. A few years at least, maybe.

Bilbo lacked the 'basic materials' for which the Ring had an affinity, though. He was not a sneak or a thief by nature, and I think it unlikely the Ring influenced his decision to take the Arkenstone.

True enough, on all counts. And bottom line - Bilbo doesn't appear to become more sneaky or mean after years of possessing the Ring. It wouldn't make sense that there was so little effect later on if the Ring had a strong enough hold on him already in Erebor to prompt him to take the Arkenstone.

Mithadan

12-09-2015, 01:20 AM

@Mithadan (is this allowed here? or....how strict is the 'on-topic' standard? the 'ps' thing, and variations, was what some of ways we spoke at the Foundations.

In the event that anyone is curious, staying "on topic" is encouraged but is more a goal than a requirement. Staying on topic means conducting discussions that, at least, loosely relate to the original point of the thread.

Given the gyrations this thread has taken, I wonder how many of the current posters on this thread have read the first post, which framed the "topic". One reason that we encourage staying on topic is to encourage discussion. If a thread goes in too many directions, it becomes hard to respond to and difficult to follow. A new issue that is too far afield from the topic being discussed should be raised as a new thread. This gives us more to talk about and improves the focus of the forum. There are altogether too few new threads being started right now and we encourage it.

So, a brief "ps" is ok occasionally but it should not be longer than the point being made in a post and if directed to a single member should be done in a pm.

Ivriniel

12-09-2015, 03:00 AM

In the event that anyone is curious, staying "on topic" is encouraged but is more a goal than a requirement. Staying on topic means conducting discussions that, at least, loosely relate to the original point of the thread.

Given the gyrations this thread has taken, I wonder how many of the current posters on this thread have read the first post, which framed the "topic". One reason that we encourage staying on topic is to encourage discussion. If a thread goes in too many directions, it becomes hard to respond to and difficult to follow. A new issue that is too far afield from the topic being discussed should be raised as a new thread. This gives us more to talk about and improves the focus of the forum. There are altogether too few new threads being started right now and we encourage it.

So, a brief "ps" is ok occasionally but it should not be longer than the point being made in a post and if directed to a single member should be done in a pm.

Thank you.

My LAST post, about further thoughts. I've taken enough of your time. Whatever you say about it all (if anything), I'll simply read, accept and move forwards.

I assume (please correct me if I'm off target), terms of manners (e.g. 'sorry', etc ie emoticons stuff) is okay. And also that 'thread cross linking?' (i.e. cross-discussion links), are okay. Some forum frown on it, for different reasons.

Please correct me on any of the following if needed. I'm not at all presuming the ideas are 'permitted'. However:

This topic here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=703237&posted=1#post703237), I'm going to make 'home' (it's the one I used to 'land my spaceship). This thread (gut instinct) has about 10,000 X 10,000 X (1.1.1) posts of undiscovered, on topic features that are going to -- over time (you watch) -- come out, and add to this -- most extremely interesting topic, in the strangest of unforseen ways. It's the ring/Ring (why don't you give me a call - Abba - apologies just one stupid joke), with the Hobbit's --TEMPORAL-- facility in a DUAL context - twicely varied (once each for 'real time' - Tolkien-Tolkien - and once each Poster DUAL Time Each-Each and then - something else. Here's the best bit....this one is best discovered by each reader in turn. Because it belongs to everyone. So, I'll PM a trusted poster (cc'ing moderators - to prove the idea is real, and how it looked when it was inspired), soon. But hint:

A.... (the first letter of the idea. The rest I'm putting into notes, to handball soon.)

I'm assuming also it's okay -- across the Tale of the Years (Ages) (thread coming) to return to 'bump' it, upon inspiration. E.g. new posters arrive: it's not a welcome sticky. It's an ontopic compliant standard.

I do this.

"Hey, nice to meet you - hava look at >>The Tale of the Years <<.

Such a post (anywhere) then points to a particular thread. Or someone else please - set it up?

what I want to do, is ***wade*** through (over time) the Forum's extraordinary wealth of prior wisdom to assemble a URL list, with snippets or context thingies etc (it's not a sticky, and it's funner (but strictly on topic and Forum compliant) if it's (not) a sticky. Gives posters ideas about 'on topic synthesis tools as well).

There's a second way I do it. A Thread with an OnTopic, URL-list, plus discussion context of --'synthesis concepts--

e.g. in a

Do you like Rings? We have several Meta-Ring themes thread here. Different threadkeepers.
Do you like Orcs? Try these. and
Do you have any ideas you like - post em as you like".

So, it's a 'thread about threads' with an Opening Post for Content Standards - but broader than 'one topic at a time'.

Please let me know if these initiatives are too pushy. I'm happy to be guided. But, I'm hoping the concepts will add popularity to these most fantastic boards, but we (me and my long-term poster pals, now sadly lost in Time) found that posting rates skyrocketed.

And I'm missing Morthorond, and want him back. I hope he returns to this very thread - I need the battering at times. It sets me straight. He's an extraordinarily funny person, and I like him. I like a person, either of if he dislikes or likes me. Having posted over 150,000 geek posts over the last 15 years, I welcome absolutely anything anyone wants to say. I also have a feeling - a really good one: it's instinct Mithidan - that something very fruitful is coming of it. If he wants a public apology, I'm giving it here. If he doesn't want it, I'm not giving it here :) I really want to see the Canon arm of the Bilbo thread continue. I have developed a growing love of it! And - good god, I think I'm going to take the Tolkien subject next year (just one) at our State's major University - where it has been hosted - for decades.

And so...

Kind Regards

Galin

12-09-2015, 07:14 AM

Once that was clear, the original version of TH Chapter 5, where Gollum was willing to give Bilbo the Ring, became, of course, untenable, because the Prof's conception of Gollum's character had changed and he realized that Gollum could never have given up his precious. So the original Ch. 5 was explained as being a cover-up by Bilbo. Only in the 1966 edition of TH, IIRC, was that chapter told as it was now, after the change, conceived to have really happened, with Gollum planning to murder Bilbo and "Thief! Baggins! We hates it forever!"

As I think I understand things, Tolkien drafted the revisions in 1944 and sent them to Allen and Unwin in 1947, and after a bit of a misunderstanding with the publishers, the revisions appeared in the Second Edition of 1951.

Of course later on the Ace Books controversy called for more tinkering in general, but I believe the new version of chapter five was already in place, again at least generally speaking.

Pitchwife

12-09-2015, 03:00 PM

You're right as usual, Galin. Thanks for the correction!:)

Leaf

12-10-2015, 09:53 PM

Let's take a glance at yet another Ringbearer, who - like Bilbo - was unaware of the Ring's nature: Smeagol. Within seconds of seeing the thing, he kills his best friend to get hold of it. [...]While killing Deagol is explained by the Ring evoking possessiveness, and getting chucked out is explained with the formidable grandmother, stealing and sneaking are the aspects of Gollum's behaviour I want to emphasize. He wasn't a model boy before the Ring either, but it seems that such a rapid downfall was augmented and sped up by the Ring's presence. [...]

On a side note: I think it's a little more complicated. It's important to emphasize that Smeagol was willing to murder his friend and kindred spirit, Deagol, within the blink of an eye. And I don't think that you can explain this decision simply by the fact that the Ring is evoking possessiveness. Something alike to this never occurs again (and never occurred before) in the dealings of mortals with the Ring of Power!

Never again does the mere presence of the Ring incite a Person, in an instance, to kill the Ring's current owner, to get hold of it. None of Frodo's Hobbit friends instantly go berserk to take the Ring away from him. The council of Elrond doesn't end in a blood bath. Faramir is able to deny the power of the Ring with a sense of reason and prudence.

The obvious exception is, of course, Boromir. But even in this case it took months and a whole lot of good reason (i.e. Boromir's desire to save Gondor) to get him to the point, where he is willing to take the Ring with force, if necessary. But he didn't just kill him slyly and scooted off. Boromir knew about the power of the Ring and wanted to use it for his own agenda. He conciously decided that this was, given the dire circumstances, the right course of action. Smeagol, on the other hand, didn't knew anything. All he knew was that there was this pretty looking golden Ring, and that this was his birthday.

Coming back to the case of Smeagol and Deagol, it seems to me that there are two possibilities:

1. The Ring's power was, at the time of the incident, stronger than it was ever again afterwards.

2. Smeagol's character is distinguishable and profoundly different from that of the whole lot of other people who knew about the Ring and were around to take it.

Inziladun

12-11-2015, 08:45 AM

Coming back to the case of Smeagol and Deagol, it seems to me that there are two possibilities:

1. The Ring's power was, at the time of the incident, stronger than it was ever again afterwards.

That was not the case. The Ring grew in power along with its maker, for one thing. It was more powerful after Sauron returned to Mordor and openly declared his return, and it continued to increase in potency as Sauron's strength rose.

2. Smeagol's character is distinguishable and profoundly different from that of the whole lot of other people who knew about the Ring and were around to take it.

I think this is the key. Sméagol was a mean, sneaking sort from his birth. He had a head for mischief and secrecy
It was said of the Nazgûl that they had been conquered by their rings sooner or later, depending on their native willpower and character. The same would be true to a greater extent with the One.
Sméagol didn't resist the Ring because he lacked the desire to do so. It called to his lowest, deadliest wants, and he responded. Even had he possessed the awareness of Frodo and Sam of the Ring's potential, I doubt he could have been swayed from using the Ring.

Pitchwife

12-11-2015, 09:47 AM

Let's consider the situation. The Ring had at that time lain on the bottom of the Anduin since Isildur dropped it . Sméagol and Déagol would be its first chance in many centuries at getting any closer to its maker. Even if it was at an all-time energy low I could imagine it mustering what little power it had in one all-out activity burst, a desperate attempt to get on the finger of a convenient and malleable bearer.

Also, we have a direct contest between two antagonists for possession of the Ring. We shouldn't, in my opinion, look to Boromir or the Council of Elrond for parallels, but consider Frodo's reaction when Bilbo just asks to touch the Ring in Rivendell, or when Sam offers to carry it for him. His first impulse (immediately suppressed and regretted, of course) is to strike, lash out, claim possession. Magnify this impulse enough, and you get Sméagol killing his friend.

But Frodo still killed neither Sam nor Bilbo, even though he had carried the Ring for months then, whereas Sméagol had only just seen it for the first time when he killed his friend. I therefore concur with Inzil that Sméagol's character is key. He had a long headstart in his decline into evil even before he took the Ring. If Boromir didn't just backstab Frodo when they quarrelled it was because even then he was a nobler man than Sméagol had ever been.

[I must, however, object to this:
Sméagol was a mean, sneaking sort from his birth.
[I]Nobody is mean, sneaking or anything of the like from their birth, and I would find such a statement atrocious if made IRL of a real person. Just saying.]

Inziladun

12-11-2015, 10:09 AM

Nobody is mean, sneaking or anything of the like from their birth, and I would find such a statement atrocious if made IRL of a real person. Just saying.]

All right. From birth, perhaps not, at least not so strongly. Nevertheless, it's clear Sméagol was already ripe for the Ring's influence before he first saw it.

Tolkien noted in Letters # 181:

The domination of the Ring was too much for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path.

He 'became' mean and mischievous. Why? Was it something to do with the environment, his personal life? I doubt it. Stoor society would seem to be very hobbit-like in general, and I cannot imagine any traumatic childhood or something similar that could have pushed him to being a ready tool for the Ring against his nature.

Leaf

12-11-2015, 10:30 AM

[...]Also, we have a direct contest between two antagonists for possession of the Ring. We shouldn't, in my opinion, look to Boromir or the Council of Elrond for parallels, but consider Frodo's reaction when Bilbo just asks to touch the Ring in Rivendell, or when Sam offers to carry it for him. His first impulse (immediately suppressed and regretted, of course) is to strike, lash out, claim possession. Magnify this impulse enough, and you get Sméagol killing his friend.

Well, I disagree. I think it's very much appropriate to draw those comparisons. Just like the participants of the Council of Elrond, or Boromir, Sméagol never touched or used the Ring before. He was exposed to it for the first time and had no Idea what it was about. The circumstances of those different people are alike to one another and yet they act fundamentally different. The only reason that those other people are not "antagonists for the possession of the Ring" is that they either don't are tempted by the Ring, or don't act out (as violently) on that impulse.

The Frodo/Bilbo incident at Rivendell, on the other hand, is hardly comparable to the Sméagol/Déagol situation, in that sense. It's clearly a situation of rivalry between two long time Ring-bearers where both of them knew about the powers of the Ring. So the question remains, what was it that "magnified this impulse"?!

As we all seem to agree, the answer is most likely Sméagol's twisted character.

Here's a quote from Gandalf about Gollum:

He was very pleased with his discovery and he concealed it; and he used it to find out secrets, and he put his knowledge to crooked and malicious uses. He became sharp-eyed and keen-eared for all that was hurtful. The Ring had given him power according to his stature.

It seems to me that the Ring didn't really corrupt Sméagol in a metaphysical/magical manner as much. It simply gave him the opportunity (and the power) to act out on his malicious desires in a very effective manner.

Although I find it important to say that this doesn't mean that the opposite constellation would be true: A good character obviously doesn't ensure a carefree contact to the Ring, nor does a good character enable an individual to use the Ring as tool for good means.

Pitchwife

12-11-2015, 02:06 PM

You're right to disagree with me, Leaf :); in my desire to stress the element of contest I neglected the element of first sight vs having been under the influence of the Ring for months.

Inzil, I'm not sure there is such a thing as a person's nature divorced of all environmental influences, but I won't belabour that point. I did, however, look up what Gandalf has to say about Sméagol's character before the finding of the Ring:
The most inquisitive and curious-minded of that family was called Sméagol. He was interested in roots and beginnings; he dived into deep pools; he burrowed under trees and growing plants; he tunnelled into green mounds; and he ceased to look up at the hill-tops, or the leaves on trees, or the flowers opening in the air; his head and his eyes were downward.
None of these interests of Sméagol's seem particulary evil to me - aren't tunnelling and burrowing pretty normal hobbitish activities? It is, of course, to be noted that he lost interest in the beauty of nature, which is never a good sign in Tolkien. But it's a long way from there to murdering his best friend over a ring, isn't it?

I'm not sure we should keep discussing this here (if at all), because, well, once upon a time this thread used to have a topic, but I think Leaf has hit on a question that is not as easy as it looks.

Morthoron

12-12-2015, 12:23 PM

This is inaccurate actually.

No, it is quite accurate, actually.

I had stated that I wouldn't post on this thread further, but the following bit of insouciant peregrination into the outlandish misses the 'crux of the biscuit' (if I may quote the learned sage F. Vincent Zappa). I have been annoyed about it the entire time, and only now have found time to rebut it.

*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.

I flatly reject your assertion that Tolkien should be limited to being simply a tinker of words, merely a linguist without the philological and philosophical underpinnings to create a theological and anthropological matrix in his subcreative world (or better, a synthesis).

He owned at certain periods the titles of Rawlinson and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon and Merton Professor of English Language and Literature at Oxford. If we were to simply stop there and ignore his life and studies in context, then perhaps there would be a foundation for his being just a wordsmith. Obviously, his first job was on the staff of the Oxford English Dictionary and his superb lexicographic skills were noted by his senior editors. That Tolkien never used a word that wasn't etymologically apt in its placement (for instance, eschewing words of French derivation when dealing with Anglo-Saxon material in his work) cannot be understated...or marveled at for the length and breadth of their consistency -- even in the dogged insistence of editing out words that weren't proper in context or were anachronistic in their placement.

However, when one makes the baldly absurd statement that because Tolkien had a professorial title to one thing, it precluded a master's knowledge in another thing, it must be pointed out and given a derisive chortle. I emphasized the statement previously, but let me print it again:

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

I would suggest, for instance, that Tolkien's expertise and study of theology would embarrass most degreed theologians (as if having the doctorate title makes one eminent). Tolkien is an internationally recognized Christian and Catholic scholar and one of the most profound Christian thinkers of the 20th century.

Here is a man with an intimate knowledge of Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy and who could read and interpret it in the original Late Latin (just as he read and interpreted Anglo-Saxon Christian poems and Middle-English Christian allegories in their original tongue - name some theologians who can do that), and who used Boethian concepts in his works (see Shippey for further information), as well as integrating Neoplatonic, Augustinian and, it can be argued, even applying syncretistic concepts like Manicheism and paganistic themes (from Norse and Greek myth and the fatalistic Kalevala) in his philosophical stew (again, a synthesizer of the highest magnitude).

This interpolation and synthesis of seemingly contradictory theological precepts was brilliantly illuminated by Tolkien in his landmark lecture "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics" (revered by critics as one of the most important pieces on the poem), wherein he embraced the marriage of Northern pagan virtues and Christian theology in Beowulf as invigorating of spirit, and which acted as a template for his integration of pagan and Christian motifs that built the cosmology and mythos of Middle-earth. And one can easily see Beowulf in the Elves suffering the "long defeat" with stoic bravery against incalculable odds, in that fate and doom play their parts as does the Christian inevitability of mortality as Tolkien states, "the wages of heroism is death".

And what did you think the Inklings talked about during their meetings, the score of the latest Lord's Cambridge v. Oxford cricket match? No, here we have a cadre of Christian thinkers unmatched for its time: C.S. Lewis the great Christian apologist (who, of course, was converted by Tolkien himself -- how do you think Tolkien had the ability to turn such a great mind as Lewis, if not for theological acumen?); Owen Barfield the anthroposophist; the theologian and writer Charles Williams; and Adam Fox, Dean of Divinity at Magdalen College, Oxford. Not only did Tolkien fit in here from just a literary standpoint, I would state his theological expertise warranted the inclusion.

I would continue, but my daughter reminds me we have Christmas shopping to do. I may or may not follow up.

*u spelt spectER wrong, wait, so did I

No, I did not. As an American, the spelling is indeed s-p-e-c-t-e-r. The British spelling is spectre. I also do not spell theater as t-h-e-a-t-r-e, or aluminum as a-l-u-m-i-n-i-u-m.

Ivriniel

12-24-2015, 09:42 PM

No, it is quite accurate, actually.

I had stated that I wouldn't post on this thread further, but the following bit of insouciant peregrination into the outlandish misses the 'crux of the biscuit' (if I may quote the learned sage F. Vincent Zappa). I have been annoyed about it the entire time, and only now have found time to rebut it.

I flatly reject your assertion that Tolkien should be limited to being simply a tinker of words, merely a linguist without the philological and philosophical underpinnings to create a theological and anthropological matrix in his subcreative world (or better, a synthesis).

He owned at certain periods the titles of Rawlinson and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon and Merton Professor of English Language and Literature at Oxford. If we were to simply stop there and ignore his life and studies in context, then perhaps there would be a foundation for his being just a wordsmith. Obviously, his first job was on the staff of the Oxford English Dictionary and his superb lexicographic skills were noted by his senior editors. That Tolkien never used a word that wasn't etymologically apt in its placement (for instance, eschewing words of French derivation when dealing with Anglo-Saxon material in his work) cannot be understated...or marveled at for the length and breadth of their consistency -- even in the dogged insistence of editing out words that weren't proper in context or were anachronistic in their placement.

However, when one makes the baldly absurd statement that because Tolkien had a professorial title to one thing, it precluded a master's knowledge in another thing, it must be pointed out and given a derisive chortle. I emphasized the statement previously, but let me print it again:

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

I would suggest, for instance, that Tolkien's expertise and study of theology would embarrass most degreed theologians (as if having the doctorate title makes one eminent). Tolkien is an internationally recognized Christian and Catholic scholar and one of the most profound Christian thinkers of the 20th century.

Here is a man with an intimate knowledge of Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy and who could read and interpret it in the original Late Latin (just as he read and interpreted Anglo-Saxon Christian poems and Middle-English Christian allegories in their original tongue - name some theologians who can do that), and who used Boethian concepts in his works (see Shippey for further information), as well as integrating Neoplatonic, Augustinian and, it can be argued, even applying syncretistic concepts like Manicheism and paganistic themes (from Norse and Greek myth and the fatalistic Kalevala) in his philosophical stew (again, a synthesizer of the highest magnitude).

This interpolation and synthesis of seemingly contradictory theological precepts was brilliantly illuminated by Tolkien in his landmark lecture "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics" (revered by critics as one of the most important pieces on the poem), wherein he embraced the marriage of Northern pagan virtues and Christian theology in Beowulf as invigorating of spirit, and which acted as a template for his integration of pagan and Christian motifs that built the cosmology and mythos of Middle-earth. And one can easily see Beowulf in the Elves suffering the "long defeat" with stoic bravery against incalculable odds, in that fate and doom play their parts as does the Christian inevitability of mortality as Tolkien states, "the wages of heroism is death".

And what did you think the Inklings talked about during their meetings, the score of the latest Lord's Cambridge v. Oxford cricket match? No, here we have a cadre of Christian thinkers unmatched for its time: C.S. Lewis the great Christian apologist (who, of course, was converted by Tolkien himself -- how do you think Tolkien had the ability to turn such a great mind as Lewis, if not for theological acumen?); Owen Barfield the anthroposophist; the theologian and writer Charles Williams; and Adam Fox, Dean of Divinity at Magdalen College, Oxford. Not only did Tolkien fit in here from just a literary standpoint, I would state his theological expertise warranted the inclusion.

I would continue, but my daughter reminds me we have Christmas shopping to do. I may or may not follow up.

No, I did not. As an American, the spelling is indeed s-p-e-c-t-e-r. The British spelling is spectre. I also do not spell theater as t-h-e-a-t-r-e, or aluminum as a-l-u-m-i-n-i-u-m.

It is great to see you back Morth! I just logged in, before I head out to my family's home for Xmas soon.

I'll be back to respond to your -- delicious..gol..ious message. I hope you've been well and merry xmas to you. See you soon. :)

I'm laughing uncontrollably again - as I read your most excellent materials!!!! Especially the first few sentences

Ivriniel

12-25-2015, 06:32 AM

@Mor_thoron,

I'm not sure that 'insouciant peregrination' of Frank Zappa's needlecraft in migrating Silmarils best captures Tolkien's degree of religious expertise in his impregnations of his mythology with, perturbingly -divisible- spectral ordinations strewn throughout the cosmology. I would rather instead, compare......Buck's Fizz.....to Abba rather than ....Frank Zappa to ......needlecraft of Balrogs.

For example, theological or anthropological analysis of the last 2000 years doesn't explain how the Arkenstone became (causation direction deliberate) a Silmaril.

As you said Morth, "concision, Ivriniel is not thy name" which of course elicits regular laughter and is becoming a staple in my friendship circles. Everyone who knows me knows I gave all my educators 'headaches' due to breaches of word lengths....

So, I would concede that the professor was etymologically advanced, linguistically gifted, and certainly a wordsmith, and theologically--oriented, and anthropologically - somewhat - oriented. It would be impossible to be otherwise inclined after decades of exposure to the academic environment.

Yet, in my lack of concision....and woolly....felicitations? or semi-abstract, denominations, um or erm, what I mean is, florid vocabulary in incisively precise linguistic focus (wait, the sentence is really not making sense :) )deters us from the fulcrum or reasoned woman's positioning of Tolkien's denominational abstractions. In sum, he was Christian, and wrote with Christian emphases, not really more. There are no real elucidations in his mythology of the diverse spectrum of liturgical positions taken by theologians about religiosity. Nor was there really anything more than mundane meanderings in any spiritual derivations he presented. I saw no exegeses, nor any of the tools of methodological -- precision -- permitted to theologians of advanced academic heritage.

Bilbo's Migrating Personality Over the Course of the Hobbit

Invisibility in the social contract of the Anglo Saxon social mind is anathema to honesty. Eave's dropping, voyeurism and in our modern world -- spy cams -- undeclared evoke spectREs of serious violation of the social contract and are prosecutable offences.

This basic facility of the civilised mind--where affectations of vanity and god complexes are not the guiding premises of interactions--is the grounding of what has and should be the defining feature of any ring or Ring or trinket imbuing invisibility. The perspective-taking task that elicits the -- vanity -- implicit or hidden in the seduction of the reader into accepting the ring as benevolent requires us to simply imagine having a friend who we discovered had 'visited the home' with their ring on, or 'been in the background' whilst having a private conversation, or worse -- stalked -- us unbeknownst to us.

I recall at my first read of the Hobbit (Ed, version year 3255, AD, ie the 'one handy', which has a lovely picture on the cover of Tolkien's Esgaroth/Barrels and Bilbo afloat) initially having a raised eyebrow at the stealth, creepily, secrecy of Bilbo and the -- obvious -- extended delay of his confession to his apparent 'close pals' of some months.

This serious lapse in morality would not have been lost on the professor, whose life in the University system would have been vexed by 'Romulan' stealth and Tal Shiar Machiavellianism. As a staunch Christian, the notion of an invisible stealthy creature creeping around his Parish would have been of course another serious and obvious moral violation of the then Anglo Saxon social 'contract'. His literary mastery and methodological tools of analysis and an English Professor, no doubt would have been preternatural preoccupations enabling him to fathom conceit, vanity, and deviation of moral fortitude in Bilbo's -- growing -- tendency to -- rationalise, minimise, justify and validate really very dubious moral escapades by the time the Battle of the Five Armies ensued.

Here this analytical premise is supported by explicit concepts apparent in the prose. For example, during Bilbo's longest period wearing the ring in Thranduil's halls, the text reads that "for something to do, he took to wandering the Elvenking's palace". I see - 'for something to do', I know, I'll 'put on my ring and head down town to, um, lets see, the Department of Justice, or um, perhaps the presidential suits, and roam around, while the various senators ready themselves for work in the morning, perhaps during their ablutions or vacating bowels, and, I know, 'just listen in' to any of the equivalent to the "Elven King's" counsels, such as a President or Prime Minister's morning chats to his family and romantic partner. Of course, no one will blink an eye when Mr Bilbo Baggins pops off his ring (or Ring) to decry 'good morning, hope this doesn't startle'. By the way, did you hear, Albatross migratory patterns now included provision for heat resistant feathers, which permit subterranean flights through lava conduits!

Then there's this "Eventually after a week or two of this sneaking sort of life" and he was "....lurking there...", in his lazily attenuated new life, where "listening to Elven guards" without their knowing, was not a bother to his conscience at all!

There goes Mr 'Moral fortitude' traipsing about in Elven Halls, thenCe off he goes, and grabs the Arkenstone (weeks ahead of the presence of the Elves and Bard, and God only knows what other stealthy, disturbingly cunning plots Mr 'Clean living Baggins' was keeping in store!

The competing......thesis....(hahahaha, okay, I'm overdoing lack of ......concision, Ivriniel (*points to Morth* hahaha) erm, um, theory, is that the author seduced the reader into minimising the gravity of the impact of the little old, small r, ring upon an owner's moral -- DECAY. It has to be inevitable that invisibility has these impacts.

"Bilbo,of course, disapproved of the whole turnoff affairs. He had by now had more than enough of the mountains, and being besieged inside was not at all to his taste"

And there you have it. The so called 'bonding of love' of Bilbo in ardour and valour of a year or so, reduced to trite boredom and he was done with the stench of dragon, bored of cram, and little bothered at all to -- hog -- the Arkenstone, rather than feasibly do a manly (Hobbit version) thing and confront openly before the world what his reason, haste, task and mission was, as he then popped on his ring (still this is creepy I read, but a little better).

Bottom line. Ungoliant ate the Silmaril morth. As I said, it's hidden in the subext. Beren didn't find it, at all, and there were only two at the end of the First Age hahahaha.

Ie. it's a fun - analysis - Devil's advocate, and yet holds some grounds. I could at this point extend the analysis into a precursor for a -- thesis -- likening for example, the features of boredom, lack of bonding, and amorality of sociopathy and its impetus to make people do rather seriously bad behaviour, like 'steal a prised jewel - such as Queen Elizabeth's Sceptre" by stealth, "because Bilbo was bored and over the Dwarves". Ie, Biblo dons his ring (it's almost a Ring by this point) and stalks the British monarch's (liken this to 'Elven King's halls) halls until he gets his moment and then runs off with the crown jewels.

How beguiled have you been that this post, several hundred in and these juxtapositions it took to highlight Mr Not-So-Innocent-Baggins growing attachment to stealth by invisibility. At the start of the narrative, to term him a 'Burglar' was antithetical to the reader's ideas about morality, but so numbed are we by the Battle of the Five armies that stealth, stealing, invisible marauding of the Dwarves by the evil Bilbo is not even noticed!

I do indeed see the spectRe of sociopathy as a pall falling upon Bilbo's character by the end of the Hobbit.

Boromir88

01-10-2016, 03:12 PM

I don't think Bilbo's motivations to take the Arkenstone and sneak it out to Bard was driven by the Ring. The Ring works by delusions of supreme power, by possessing it and using it. Boromir wants to take the Ring and use it to command armies against Sauron. Sam's temptation is to use it's power against Sauron and grow an extravagant garden in Mordor. Gollum's temptation is to keep it for himself and dine on the finest fish forever. The Ring works by tempting the bearer with a delusion of "claim ownership of me, you can overthrow Sauron and use me to achieve your heart's desires."

Conceptually, the ring in The Hobbit isn't the One Ring in The Lord of the Rings. But even if it was Bilbo's actions to take the Arkenstone were not driven by The Ring. The Ring would not be tempting Bilbo to use the Arkenstone to achieve his desires of reconciliation. It would be tempting Bilbo to use the Ring itself, as the means to achieve his goal. That's how the Ring works to gain a grip on it's bearer.

The original topic has certainly been interesting to ponder...and drag this wight out of his barrow ;). I haven't read The Hobbit in quite awhile, but it seems to me Bilbo felt forced to take drastic and, in the very least questionable, action in an attempt to be a peacemaker. The result doesn't go as Bilbo planned, but the result doesn't change his intentions. Something you can see in Tolkien is good intentions may lead to unintentional consequences, just as evil intentions may lead to an unexpected positive result. Whatever side you come down on, if you think Bilbo's sneaking and concealing the truth was morally questionable/treacherous (or that he had a legal claim and intentions to bring peace), he's later absolved by Gandalf and then by the person he committed the offense against, Thorin.

Bilbo is by no means perfect, this reminds me of how he concealed the true story of how he got the Ring for many years. However, Bilbo concealing the full truth is so very minor, it's silly to condemn him, or act as if he's committed some great injustice. When confronted with the fact Bilbo hasn't been completely honest, he comes clean, and that's more telling of Bilbo's character than trying to conceal the truth because he's too embarrassed at the time.

Ivriniel

01-11-2016, 09:59 PM

Inziladun

01-12-2016, 10:36 AM

I'm not exactly sure we get an exact definition of 'what' the Ring does to character and what character traits are varied. I understood that appeals to domination and control were a part of the transition. I see appeals to greed, themes of seduction, to self-serving behaviour, and also lust of sadism implicit in the transition. I'd add increased tendency for objectification, and for callous lack of empathy. If I had to draw on modern day conceptions, I'd be looking at psychopathy/sociopathy for assistance to clarify how the Ring exerted influence.

What the Ring offered its possessor was power, whatever the individual felt he needed such power for was really unimportant.

Isildur was a king with the attendant desire for strength to rule his realm and secure it; Gollum wanted to be able to sneak around and spy on others; Bilbo wanted the Ring's invisibility effect to aid him as the 'burglar', though he had also come to enjoy the power itself, feeling pride when it hid him from Smaug, and so forth.

The Ring called to the chink in one's armor which was one's greatest want, and it offered the power to effect it. Gandalf said the Ring would weigh on his innate feelings of pity and the desire to do good to corrupt him.

There are several tacit themes in the book that don't square with the explicit prose. One is the delay Bilbo had in declaring he had the Arkenstone. A number of weeks prior to the arrival of the Elven armies was involved.

After Bilbo took the stone, the more time passed, the more difficult telling anyone he had it became. I can relate to that myself. The longer you keep some unpleasant secret, it gets harder and harder to let it go.
Also, he may have had some inkling that it would be useful in some way unrelated to him, whether that was a conscious thought or not.

His delay at telling his comrades about the Ring a second. His habituation/attenuation to long-term use of the Ring a third (which was amoral. He ceased caring that he was an unwanted spy and became duly self-focussed in his motivations). His delivery of the Arkenstone to Bard and the Elven King was also just weird. The explicit prose states that he had no coveting of the stone and was pleased to be relieved of it. But, the problem with the behaviour was lack of affect and attachment to his Dwarf pals after the betrayal.

The Ring certainly could have been a factor in Bilbo's keeping it a secret so long. But he also was proud to have shown he wasn't as useless as some of the Dwarves seem to have thought, by the way he made it past Balin with appeared to be clever 'burglar' professional technique.

As for his 'betrayal' of the Dwarves after giving up the stone, he could hardly have stayed with them when Thorin had made it pretty clear he wasn't welcome anymore. Being picked up and threatened with being thrown to one's death wouldn't exactly make one want to stay with the person making the threat. ;)