The History of LotR - Chapter-by-Chapter Companion

[Mister Underhill]

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

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

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

[Estelyn Telcontar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The explanation of hobbit marriage customs is most amusing!

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

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

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

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

Isn’t that absolutely hilarious?!

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

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

That is.

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

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

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

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

[Bêthberry]

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

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

[HerenIstarion]

Point taken

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

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

[davem]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[davem]

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

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

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

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

I want to look again on a live dragon.

Bingo goes to find his father.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, the oddest statement for me is

He goes to Rivendell between the worlds & settles down.

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

[Bêthberry]

Vigo, eh? Talk about life imitating art.

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

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

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

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

Thanks for posting that, davem.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Later it is said of Bingo:

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

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

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

[The Saucepan Man]

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

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

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

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

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

[mark12_30]

Esty wrote:

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

Because his own mother inspired him so?

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

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

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

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bb,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Who are they?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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