Gandalf And Bilbo

Well, that was very much appreciated. Thank you Firefoot.
I'm hesitant on reading works that are done as an afterthought, though Unfinished Tales may not fall into that category. Whenever a story becomes popular and its author is no longer with us, books inevitably appear to feed off the popularity. The Law Of Diminshing Returns suggests this reading would not be of the standard of the original. Even if these snipets of stories are actually written by the author, its still not a finished product (assumption).
Yet I may indulge in obtaining Unfinished Tales anyway, as the quotes you have provided does indeed help in filling in the background story.
Thanks again.

[Mithalwen]

Gloin, I understand what you are saying, but do read Unfinished Tales. To my mind it is more "authentic" than the published Silmarillion because Christopher Tolkien did not attempt to polish them in to a finished narrative but has published them with footnotes to explain inconsistencies with the published works. As well as the background to the quest of Erebor there is fascinating back history on the Istari, the Palantiri, the Druadan Cirion and Eorl, the House of Dol Amroth and the loss of the ring - some of these are developed versions of what appeared in the appendices and given the pressure that Tolkien was under both of time and book length, I don't think that their omission is necessarily a judgement on their quality.

Also there is the wonderful tale of Aldarion and Erendis, which is as fine a story as Tolkien ever wrote and shows a greater insight into dysfunctional relationships than you might expect. It is a gem not to be missed. Remember that tolkien found it hard to find a publisher for the Silmarillion stories ... they only wanted the "bankable" hobbits. Anyway, read UT even if you give HoME a wide berth.

Re cross post with Eomer .. great minds....

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

If I may try to influence you, buy Unfinished Tales!

Even if you're not too interested in The Silmarillion, UT adds a fair bit to your appreciation of The Lord of the Rings. All the extra talk about the Black Riders, Dwarves, Rohan and Gandalf is worth it alone.

Done.
I'll purchase Unfinished Tales, if for no other reason than it provides insight to the Middle Earth story. I'm sure I won't be disappointed. After all, I bought the Dune Encyclopedia to help me through the Dune Universe and never regretted it (incongruous though it may have been).

I also happened to read a bizarre dialogue (ficticious I suspect) between Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky regards the first LOTR movie. Can anyone verify this was an attempt at humour. I find it hard to accept the thought that Gandalf himself killed the Dwarves in Moria, explaining why he didn't want the fellowship to go through the tunnels. That conjecture is just too absurd for me. Orc complicity is Occam's Razor here as far as I follow the gist of the story. Besides, the Orcs' are ugly and therefore evil, right.

[Ruoutorin]

Gandalf explains his motivations in The Quest of Erebor, however this is just Tolkien's attempt to tie together The Hobbit with The LotR. In reality it is my opinion that The Hobbit was written for children, and a character like Bilbo would appeal to children. He is sorta "goofy and bumbling" and adds comic relief to a story that, to a child's eyes, has some pretty frightening creatures. When he wrote the LotR, Tolkien incorporated the tale of the Hobbit and he had to give a reasonable explanation why he would choose someone like Bilbo to accompy Thorin & Co. on a very serious quest.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Gloin Rockcryer

Done.
I'll purchase Unfinished Tales, if for no other reason than it provides insight to the Middle Earth story.

I am sure you won't regret it. I looked at my copy this morning and read, for the first time in ages, the introduction which makes it clear that Christopher Tolkien was only too aware of issues you raise - so I hope you will be reassured.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

To jump in with another quote from UT about selecting Bilbo:

'How would you select any one Hobbit for such a purpose?' said Gandalf. 'I had not time to sort them all out; but I knew the Shire very well by that time, although when I met Thorin I had been away for more than twenty years on less pleasant business. So naturally thinking about the Hobbits that I knew, i said to myself: "I want a dash of the Took" (but not too much, Master Peregrin) "and I want a good foundation of the stolider sort, a Baggins perhaps." That pointed at once to Bilbo. And I had known him once very well, almost up to his coming of age, better than he knew me. I liked him then. And now I found out that he was "unattached"- to jump on again, for of course I did not know all this until I went back to the Shire. I learned that he had never married. I thought that odd, though I guessed why it was; and the reason that I guessed was not the one that most of the Hobbits gave me; that he had early been left very well off and his own master. No, I guessed that he wanted to remain "unattached" foe some reason deep down which he did not understand himself- or would not acknowledge, for it alarmed him. He wanted, all the same, to be free to go when the chance came, or he had made up his courage. I remembered how he used to pester me with questions when he was a youngster about the Hobbits that had occasionally "gone off," as they said in the Shire. There were at least two of his uncles on the Took side that had done so."

[Child of the 7th Age]

I also happened to read a bizarre dialogue (ficticious I suspect) between Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky regards the first LOTR movie. Can anyone verify this was an attempt at humour. I find it hard to accept the thought that Gandalf himself killed the Dwarves in Moria, explaining why he didn't want the fellowship to go through the tunnels. That conjecture is just too absurd for me. Orc complicity is Occam's Razor here as far as I follow the gist of the story. Besides, the Orcs' are ugly and therefore evil, right.

Gloin,

I think the "bizarre dialogue" you are referring to is here: Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn in McSweeney's "Pink One is Now Dark Pink", Part I and Part II.

I had never seen these before so thanks for the reference. We are definitely talking parody here. When I started reading, I keeled over with laughter. Both Chomsky and Zinn are scholars with a definitely leftish (verging on radical) slant on politics and history. Hence you get the references to "pink" in the title. They are reading LotR with a socialist/Marxist slant, which of course is ridiculous. But for someone who's had to read a lot of Howard Zinn over the years vis-a-vis American history, this is really rather funny.

I don't know how you ran across these dialogues, but Messrs. Zinn and Chomsky would actually be quite sympathetic to your description of Gandalf as a "puppetmaster," a characterization with which I can not wholly agree...

Upon consideration, I'll easily replace "puppetmaster" from my characterization of Gandalf with "manipulator", seeing as he moved events but didn't control them. After all, the Wizards WERE sent to Middle Earth to perform a duty (some more successful than others). Peter Jackson's direction of or Ian McCellen's portrayal of Gandalf where he confronts Denethor illustates his ability/desire to command. Granted, I didn't get this feeling from the book(s), which I guess shows that my opinions are more influenced by the movie.

The Chomsky/Zinn dialogue I stumbled upon through the process of "Googling". I don't remember what I googled but I do recall my eyes snapping to attention when Chomsky's name showed up. I read this before I read the books believe it or not, so I had to mentally fight against the misinformation of the parody as the true story unravelled. (I'm ok now, I think)