Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivriniel
Actually, this post presumes authority in quite a different way. It presumes that the extant texts, published as is, do not have citations of worth.
I think you'll find materials in post with -- references -- not direct citations to position an argument. I don't think there is a singular capacity for anyone to presume correctness on any given topic
Certainly not on this topic, where, it is quite clear that the author's materials evolved as he wrote, in such a liquid fashion that pinning down a simple topic with a 'one size fits all' argument speaks more to the need of the poster, rather than the reality.
I'm afraid that after about 30 years of consideration to canon and other material I've grown increasingly diverse in sense of options for argument. Which is why I'm suspicious of posts that presume 'correctness'. It's more about a need of order in one's mind and to slot things away in a known set of parameters.
There's no such thing in Tolkien's works. He was evolving ideas to the day he died.
|
Once again, your strained supposition does not include direct citation or any documentation to support your points, and rather than trying to defend your untenable position you've wasted a few paragraphs worrying about other posters' tone, and rambling about Tolkien's fluidity. Tolkien was indeed fluid, but in this case we know where, why and when he changed the story.
Given the information William already provided regarding how and when Tolkien published material regarding the One Ring, coupled with the fact that Tolkien had to dramatically change aspects of
The Hobbit after the first edition to align with the new malignancy of the Ring, leaves you with nothing but obstinacy in maintaining your position.
I have a first edition of
The Hobbit. Have you read it? Gollum is not nearly the miserable, despicable fellow he is in revised editions. As I stated previously, Gollum has every intention of giving his "present" to Bilbo when he wins the riddle game. Gollum even leads Bilbo out of the tunnel -- a thing wholly inexplicable if Tolkien considers the magic ring to be the One Ring. Tolkien had to change the very nature of Gollum, as he had with the Ring, in order to make the old story fit the "sequel". Gollum even apologizes when he discovers he lost the ring (in Bilbo's possession), which would be quite ridiculous if Tolkien had considered the corrosive effects of the One Ring prior to writing
LotR:
Quote:
|
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.