Bilbo´s treachery

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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.

I was looking forwards to your response. I'm grinning. I never fail to be 'impressed' by variations in ......Shelob.....um, now the grin's growing into an....hm...Yrch-ish grin, nah, um, more just a fun grin as I type and speak out loud my response.

You see.....Shelob was ....um....Ung......no, I must refrain. Ungoliant is reserved for 'emergencies'. I don't think we're at that point yet. I think we're at the point where the point is that point of the prior poster...hahahaha. really just needs to be ...as full of snipes as ...um....hahahaha is 'polite', yet as full of gripes as is 'impolite' and as...Galadriel was UNfriends forever with, wasn't it Feanor....

So, that's about as much as needs to be added to the point about your point that no prior point matters to any degree of point, except to be pointy, perhaps barbed hahaha, but no extra POINT to the points.

enjoy - I'm laughing - are we at Ungoliant yet?

[Ivriniel]

@Morthogon, or -oron, on something

and - there's textual analysis provided. Indications of dates of published texts I've provided, in a timeline pre-WWII, together with commentary about The Silmarillian's earlier notes (1927 I think he began. Forgive me if I just don't give a rat's rear end about the exact date - because it's not that important really, when we look on the TV and see the world around us. Try to enjoy urself and have some fun). In any case, then there was a concession made, to another poster a '36' '37' (or something about that range hahaha), betWIXT the Hobbit and LotR.

And those additions part of a larger schema of 'vibe-ish' (I'm actually laughing as I type) analysis. And my closing point.

The prof T was making addendums to his narratives to the day he died. There's no such thing as 'he wrote it on the second minute of the 3rd day of nineteen hundred and 28 ergo - canonised forever as 'the truth, the proof and the justification to get.....snipy.... about dates). As we know of the materials, each chapter he wrote forwards, he was back-revising as well.

So, about 'treacheries' Hobbits and LotR's, I believe the central point being made has been made. We've all made the point we've made. The made points are made to be made and made. Not UNmade - and that's a joke about what JRRT used to do as a linguist.

He UN-ed a lot of things, and sometimes it was just very funny. As in 'verily so', and UNlight, UNfriend, UNmake - three examples. hahaha, wait, omg, I wandered into new turf - I wonder why

Cheers

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

I was looking forwards to your response. I'm grinning. I never fail to be 'impressed' by variations in ......Shelob.....um, now the grin's growing into an....hm...Yrch-ish grin, nah, um, more just a fun grin as I type and speak out loud my response.

You see.....Shelob was ....um....Ung......no, I must refrain. Ungoliant is reserved for 'emergencies'. I don't think we're at that point yet. I think we're at the point where the point is that point of the prior poster...hahahaha. really just needs to be ...as full of snipes as ...um....hahahaha is 'polite', yet as full of gripes as is 'impolite' and as...Galadriel was UNfriends forever with, wasn't it Feanor....

So, that's about as much as needs to be added to the point about your point that no prior point matters to any degree of point, except to be pointy, perhaps barbed hahaha, but no extra POINT to the points.

enjoy - I'm laughing - are we at Ungoliant yet?

You may well think the gibberish you are typing is cute or witty, but it is just gibberish. You have often resorted to gibberish in this thread when another poster proves a point through research. It must be some sort of psychologically regressive fallback. Like when a child sucks its thumb.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

The prof T was making addendums to his narratives to the day he died. There's no such thing as 'he wrote it on the second minute of the 3rd day of nineteen hundred and 28 ergo - canonised forever as 'the truth, the proof and the justification to get.....snipy.... about dates). As we know of the materials, each chapter he wrote forwards, he was back-revising as well.

So, about 'treacheries' Hobbits and LotR's, I believe the central point being made has been made. We've all made the point we've made. The made points are made to be made and made. Not UNmade - and that's a joke about what JRRT used to do as a linguist.

We are all aware Tolkien made changes to his stories. He was an inveterate tinkerer. However, he was not writing about Hobbits in 1918, he was not referring to Sauron as Thû in 1965, and the idea of the corruptive One Ring became a plot point while he was writing Lord of the Rings, after The Hobbit was published and selling. In fact, the very addendums you rabbit on about occurred with The Hobbit -- it had to be revised to meet the ideas created in the new book, the idea of the One Ring had to be established through Gollum, because it wasn't there before.

Because the One Ring wasn't there before, because it was a new idea (writers sometimes get them). Like Aragorn wasn't there before. Or Théoden. Or the Second Age. Or Primula Brandybuck. Or the Nazgul.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

You may well think the gibberish you are typing is cute or witty, but it is just gibberish. You have often resorted to gibberish in this thread when another poster proves a point through research. It must be some sort of psychologically regressive fallback. Like when a child sucks its thumb.



We are all aware Tolkien made changes to his stories. He was an inveterate tinkerer. However, he was not writing about Hobbits in 1918, he was not referring to Sauron as Thû in 1965, and the idea of the corruptive One Ring became a plot point while he was writing Lord of the Rings, after The Hobbit was published and selling. In fact, the very addendums you rabbit on about occurred with The Hobbit -- it had to be revised to meet the ideas created in the new book, the idea of the One Ring had to be established through Gollum, because it wasn't there before.

Because the One Ring wasn't there before, because it was a new idea (writers sometimes get them). Like Aragorn wasn't there before. Or Théoden. Or the Second Age. Or Primula Brandybuck. Or the Nazgul.

Listen, you've made ur point, so let's move on. Personalised language is == boring -- 'jibberish see, jibberish do, we jibberish - oo oo oo'.

Thanx for ur ...... post - We're getting closer to Ungoliant

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Listen, you've made ur point, so let's move on. Personalised language is == boring -- 'jibberish see, jibberish do, we jibberish - oo oo oo'.

Thanx for ur ...... post - We're getting closer to Ungoliant

Where exactly are you moving on to?

As far as your odd mention of "getting closer to Ungoliant" (a mantra repeated over and over in this thread), it seems like some sort of veiled threat. Have at it. I am unconcerned.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Where exactly are you moving on to?

As far as your odd mention of "getting closer to Ungoliant" repeated over and over in this thread like some mantra, it seems like some sort of veiled threat. Have at it. I am unconcerned.

last say it-is morthagon. let's just move on and have fun. I'm not really very interested in furthering points made on the thread. It's all been said before. It's all been covered. It's very human to think 'I'm right' and it's all very tiring.

I'd rather have some fun and make a lighter conversation on topics.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

I'd rather have some fun and make a lighter conversation on topics.

May I suggest the Middle Earth Mirth forum?

[Pitchwife]

I'm feeling a little contrary today, so I'd like to stir the pot of this thread once more and argue that the fact that Tolkien didn't, at the time of writing The Hobbit, intend the ring to have an evil influence on Bilbo, though undeniably true, is neither here nor there.

Why? Because the change in role and importance the ring underwent between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, becoming The One Ring, is retroactive within the fictional universe. Once the ring 'turned out' to be the One Ring it always was the One Ring, and the story in the First Edition where Gollum was ready to give Bilbo the ring willingly becomes a figment of Bilbo's desire to make himself look better and affirm his right to the ring.

It's therefore perfectly legit in my opinion to speculate about the Ring influencing Bilbo's taking the Arkenstone, and even more his failure to report his find to the Dwarves - though definitely not the use he made of it, where his better hobbit nature came through. I mean, I totally could see Frodo wondering about that, re-reading Bilbo's book after his return from Mordor. Whatever the Ring's part in the affair, it's influence on Bilbo would still have been very subtle and tenuous at the time, which may be why Tolkien felt no need to elaborate on it in his revisions.

Once again, it's clear and has been amply demonstrated that this isn't what Tolkien intended at the time of writing TH. Whether this is a problem depends on whether you hold auctorial intention to be more important than a text's power to acquire and generate new meanings through its history.