Bilbo´s treachery

[Zigûr]

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.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

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]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

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

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

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]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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]

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.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

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]

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?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

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

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

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

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

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

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

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

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Do you recall that or not?

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

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

So, Zigur, what's your point.

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

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

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

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

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

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

No.

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

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

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

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

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

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