Bilbo´s treachery

[William Cloud Hicklin]

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]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

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

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

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

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]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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]

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:

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]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

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.