Bilbo´s treachery

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Hello Pitchwife good to see you.

Hi, Ivriniel! A fine mess you've made of this thread, if I may say so; but I think we've cleared it up by now. At the very least your ideas have the merit of being fresh and unorthodox.

Unlikemost readers, I first read The Hobbit after The Lord of the Rings, so it would be natural for my perception to be somewhat coloured by the later book. Still I didn't find much of LotR's darker tones and themes in it, except in the character of Gollum (who was already poor Sméagol to me) and in the Battle of Five Armies which echoed (or rather foreshadowed) the great battles of Helm's Deep and the Pelennor.

The invisibility thing in itself didn't strike me as particularly wrong - it's a common fairytale trope, and the scenes in which Bilbo uses the ring are IMO written totally different from those where Frodo uses it in LotR, a lot lighter and largely devoid of the ominous overtones we find there. We don't get that sense of him passing into another world or dimension.

What did strike me as wrong in a Gollumish sense was Bilbo's secrecy about the ring, never mentioning it to his friends until he's practically forced to. And this is, of course, where Gandalf's sideway glance comes into play, which you've been mentioning:

Originally Posted by The Hobbit Ch. 6, Out of the Frying Pan Into the Fire

The dwarves looked at him with quite a new respect, when he talked about dodging guards, jumping over Gollum, and squeezing through, as if it was not very difficult or very alarming.
'What did I tell you?' said Gandalf laughing. 'Mr. Baggins has more about him than you guess.' He gave Bilbo a queer look from under his bushy eyebrows, as he said this, and the hobbit wondered if he guessed at the part of his tale that he had left out.

OIbviously Gandalf guessed that Bilbo hadn't performed all these feats unaided but was hiding something; and he may have pondered that such secrecy wasn't quite in character for the hobbit. Looking back from LotR, it may have been here that Gandalf first got an inkling that all wasn't right with Bilbo after his encounter with Gollum.

On the other hand, it's hardly reprehensible that Bilbo wanted to make himself look daring and dashing in the eyes of the Dwarves after having been belittled and denigrated by them for most of the journey so far, and the Ring, we could say, used and maybe amplified this innocent desire in its own desire to remain hidden from such as Gandalf. But we have to consider that Bilbo only used the Ring for the benefit of his companions, much unlike Gollum, who had a long headstart on his path into evil even when he first found it.

(By the way, since you speak of a "The Land kind of wrongness", I wonder: did you in your reading history come from Tolkien to Donaldson or vice versa? You sometimes seem to see Tolkien's characters through a Donaldsonian lens which, in my opinion, tends to distort them, amplifying darkness and wrongness at the expense of other aspects. Same in your Frodo thread.)

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I think that the main act of Bilbo's "treachery" was not taking of the Arkenstone or keeping it secret from the Dwarves. The betrayal of trust really came in when Bilbo gave the stone away to an outsider - moreover, on outsider on the opposite side of the friendship line. And Bilbo knew that no amount of legal twists and loops can justify the dishonesty of his act at this point. And yet this act - the biggest breaking of trust - was quite clearly not something the Ring would have had a hand in.

Right. His greatest betrayal was also his most unselfish and, in its outcome, an act of great goodness and wisdom. Totally un-Ringy.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

it is possible that the Ring took Bilbo's own curiosity and adventurousness and a touch of greed and pulled them in just the right direction. However, I still would not agree to a "the Ring made me do it!" argument. I think all the major components were already present in Bilbo, and if the Ring had any influence at all, it was more to give him a push in the right direction

No, the Ring didn't make him do it, it may just have added a pinch of "Ooh, shiny! We wants it!" to what was already there. If there were no chinks in our characters to begin with, the Ring would have nothing to work with. But you're right, he would have taken it anyway - the text even says so, now I reread it:

Originally Posted by The Hobbit Ch.3, Not at Home

Suddenly Bilbo's arm went towards it drawn by its enchantment.

My emphasis: its enchantment, i.e. the Arkenstone's own. No need for the Ring. So much for thinking I had a case.

As for telling or not telling the Dwarves, I think if he had presented to Thorin "The Arkenstone, discovered for you by your faithful servant Bilbo Baggins, esq., master burglar" they might have carried him around on their hands - or not. You make some very cogent points about their mental state at the time. In any case the need for a grain of salt when making retrospective interpretations has just been demonstrated.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

So what does Tolkien do after publishing The Hobbit? In writing a sequel, he magnifies the tale of Bilbo Baggins and the other characters.

Exactly. Looking back from LotR, The Hobbit isn't so much a prequel as a miniature model, like a rehearsal acted out in a sandbox of much smaller scale and with much smaller stakes.

[Ivriniel]

(By the way, since you speak of a "The Land kind of wrongness", I wonder: did you in your reading history come from Tolkien to Donaldson or vice versa?

I read Donaldsonian stuff second. (I thought Lord Foul was 'hotter' than Sauron - hahahaha' at least the former had a corporeal body, or could choose one. And Sauron's 'hot burning eye' hahahaha although literally perhaps 'hot' wasn't very 'hot' hahahaha)[/quote]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Hi, Ivriniel! A fine mess you've made of this thread, if I may say so; but I think we've cleared it up by now. At the very least your ideas have the merit of being fresh and unorthodox.

Hi Pitchwife. Unorthodoxy was not at all in any part intended,, but I think ur referring to the Ungoliant/Shelob diversion prose? Still, that's posting. Anonymised text seems to enable lower manners thresholds, I've found over time and I try to make light when it gets so serious it's just not fun anymore.

The invisibility thing in itself didn't strike me as particularly wrong - it's a common fairytale trope, and the scenes in which Bilbo uses the ring are IMO written totally different from those where Frodo uses it in LotR, a lot lighter and largely devoid of the ominous overtones we find there. We don't get that sense of him passing into another world or dimension.

Yes, invisibility is common in fairytales though it's in horror stories a lot as well. I was always intrigued, while some part of me baulked at the Ring's invisibility with Bilbo. Even at 15 years of age, which a very long time ago for now, I remember imagining a friend stalking around invisibly (by perspective taking and imagination) and then trying the idea out myself, and then being troubled by the Ring's power.....

What did strike me as wrong in a Gollumish sense was Bilbo's secrecy about the ring, never mentioning it to his friends until he's practically forced to. And this is, of course, where Gandalf's sideway glance comes into play, which you've been mentioning:

I think so - I also seem to recall words of sorts, and I should probably find the citation. From the LotR perspective, Gandalf was versed in Ring Lore, and so the seeing of - even a Lesser Ring - would have opened Gandalf's eye for history up to the Second Age and the Istari's subsequent arrival later on.

But if you presuppose the Hobbit-ish view (the prof hadn't a cogent narrative for the Ring yet), the prior argument isn't as clear.

[Ivriniel]

I read Donaldsonian stuff second. (I thought Lord Foul was 'hotter' than Sauron - hahahaha' at least the former had a corporeal body, or could choose one. And Sauron's 'hot burning eye' hahahaha although literally perhaps 'hot' wasn't very 'hot' hahahaha)

Hi Pitchwife. Unorthodoxy was not at all in any part intended,, but I think ur referring to the Ungoliant/Shelob diversion prose? Still, that's posting. Anonymised text seems to enable lower manners thresholds, I've found over time and I try to make light when it gets so serious it's just not fun anymore.

Yes, invisibility is common in fairytales though it's in horror stories a lot as well. I was always intrigued, while some part of me baulked at the Ring's invisibility with Bilbo. Even at 15 years of age, which a very long time ago for now, I remember imagining a friend stalking around invisibly (by perspective taking and imagination) and then trying the idea out myself, and then being troubled by the Ring's power.....

I think so - I also seem to recall words of sorts, and I should probably find the citation. From the LotR perspective, Gandalf was versed in Ring Lore, and so the seeing of - even a Lesser Ring - would have opened Gandalf's eye for history up to the Second Age and the Istari's subsequent arrival later on.

But if you presuppose the Hobbit-ish view (the prof hadn't a cogent narrative for the Ring yet), the prior argument isn't as clear.

Shall I find some actual quotes?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

The invisibility thing in itself didn't strike me as particularly wrong - it's a common fairytale trope, and the scenes in which Bilbo uses the ring are IMO written totally different from those where Frodo uses it in LotR, a lot lighter and largely devoid of the ominous overtones we find there. We don't get that sense of him passing into another world or dimension.

What did strike me as wrong in a Gollumish sense was Bilbo's secrecy about the ring, never mentioning it to his friends until he's practically forced to. And this is, of course, where Gandalf's sideway glance comes into play, which you've been mentioning...

OIbviously Gandalf guessed that Bilbo hadn't performed all these feats unaided but was hiding something; and he may have pondered that such secrecy wasn't quite in character for the hobbit. Looking back from LotR, it may have been here that Gandalf first got an inkling that all wasn't right with Bilbo after his encounter with Gollum.

On the other hand, it's hardly reprehensible that Bilbo wanted to make himself look daring and dashing in the eyes of the Dwarves after having been belittled and denigrated by them for most of the journey so far, and the Ring, we could say, used and maybe amplified this innocent desire in its own desire to remain hidden from such as Gandalf. But we have to consider that Bilbo only used the Ring for the benefit of his companions, much unlike Gollum, who had a long headstart on his path into evil even when he first found it.

Now that we (every poster in this thread minus one poor sod) have reached consensus establishing that Bilbo's magic ring in the first edition of The Hobbit was not the One Ring of Lord of the Rings, the thought I had was -- why would anyone need to assign outside sources to Bilbo's behavior in The Hobbit, or, at least, The Hobbit before it was revised?

Bilbo Baggins was from the outset not a sterling and spotless individual. He was house-proud, rather haughty of his comfortable station and could be very rude in a Hobbitish manner. That he could be pompous, secretive, covetous and dissembling is not out of the realm of Hobbit character; in fact, there are many other instances of Hobbits behaving badly I'm sure we all can recall.

But he did manage, through adversity and his own reluctance, to do the right thing more often than not, and to do the right thing even when his inner stodgy-Baggins was arguing against his actions.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Now that we (every poster in this thread minus one poor sod) have reached consensus establishing that Bilbo's magic ring in the first edition of The Hobbit was not the One Ring of Lord of the Rings, the thought I had was -- why would anyone need to assign outside sources to Bilbo's behavior in The Hobbit, or, at least, The Hobbit before it was revised?

Bilbo Baggins was from the outset not a sterling and spotless individual. He was house-proud, rather haughty of his comfortable station and could be very rude in a Hobbitish manner. That he could be pompous, secretive, covetous and dissembling is not out of the realm of Hobbit character; in fact, there are many other instances of Hobbits behaving badly I'm sure we all can recall.

But he did manage, through adversity and his own reluctance, to do the right thing more often than not, and to do the right thing even when his inner stodgy-Baggins was arguing against his actions.

Pompous - mildly but humorously, after all, his position on the Sackville Bagginses and all that (though that was adapted in LotR)
But - no - covetous, dissembling - perhaps a little. E.g. the social desirability of polite declinations to Gandalf about guests and s on.

That's interpolation and extending character flaws beyond - arguably - their 'base levels'.

The question that has been explored this thread by several posters was

Did Bilbo's base levels of secretiveness, beguiling by lies of omission, and dissembling (mendatious perhaps to alter the 'flavour' or prevarication, if one imputes more sinister tones) manner increase over the course of the narrative.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

The question that has been explored this thread by several posters was

Did Bilbo's base levels of secretiveness, beguiling by lies of omission, and dissembling (mendatious perhaps to alter the 'flavour' or prevarication, if one imputes more sinister tones) manner increase over the course of the narrative.

Was it, though? I don't recall posts with a longitudinal type of analysis comparing Bilbo "now" against Bilbo "then" within the same edition.

But since you bring it up, no, I don't think Bilbo's innate flaws increase; I just think that the range of application widened. In the Shire, his best and worst deeds were limited to the life of a haughty, comfortable, reasonably well-off hobbit, a life in which formalities could go for ethics, or etiquette for morality - a life in which written contracts matter and "1/14 share" would be calculated to the penny. In the "adventure" part of his travels, Bilbo's actions begin to have a much more profound impact on both himself and his companions. He realized that he has the power to do or not to do, which he can use to, say, save everyone's lives, or make an independent choice for himself. He has a choice to tell the Dwarves about the Ring, or to keep it a secret. Firstly, as Pitch mentioned above, part of his wanted to look daring and dashing to the Dwarves. They have been underestimating his value quite a lot, which would have increased the innate desire to prove oneself. But also there is the issue of independence. When the Dwares need Bilbo, their attitude is "You signed up for this, this is your quest too now, go do the dirty work". But once that's done, Bilbo is just "the burglar" - it's an "us vs him" scenario. Well, if he can't fully be part of this quest, soul and heart, he might as well become his own individual rather than a tag-along to wipe the dirt with. Independence isn't necessarily a lack of reliance; for Bilbo is just has to mean that his agenda does not necessarily hinge on the Dwarves, and having a secret of his own does precisely that. It gives a purpose to the adventure that is specific to him.

And as he discovers the consequences of his choices and actions, he also does a lot of reevaluating. The foundation and framework of his former life becomes less important to him than things that are above mere formality - like food and cheer... and bravery, and friendship, and selflessness, and many more. And at this point his conscience really wins out against any wandering greed, or cowardice, or comfort-seeking-ness, indecisiveness, selfishness, apathy, what have you.

Yes, had his conscience not won, he would have had a greater range of negative deeds at his disposal. But the change is not so much in his own qualities as it is with the range of application of those qualities, and the range of consequences they have on others.

So I have to agree with Morthoron here - the negative qualities Bilbo displays throughout the book are not born at the spur of the moment, they were always present in him - just controlled differently and pointed elsewhere. Likewise, his positive qualities aren't dropped down from the ceiling; they just lay dormant in him, snoozing away in a comfortable life.


EDIT: Just to point out, at this point in the story Gandalf isn't that well-versed in Ring-lore. I don't have FOTR with me, but from what I recall he made the trip to Gondor's library only after Bilbo returned home to the Shire - perhaps even after Bilbo's 111th birthday. The queer look he gives Bilbo after his glorified tale of his escape from the goblins is very much explicable just by the extravagance of the tale, and suspicions specific to the nature of the Ring are quite unlikely.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

EDIT: Just to point out, at this point in the story Gandalf isn't that well-versed in Ring-lore. I don't have FOTR with me, but from what I recall he made the trip to Gondor's library only after Bilbo returned home to the Shire - perhaps even after Bilbo's 111th birthday. The queer look he gives Bilbo after his glorified tale of his escape from the goblins is very much explicable just by the extravagance of the tale, and suspicions specific to the nature of the Ring are quite unlikely.

Yes, according to the Tale of Years Gandalf visited Minas Tirith and read the scroll of Isildur in 3017.

That's not to say that he was ignorant of Ring-lore before that, of course, but it had been Saruman's area of expertise, not his:
"The lore of the Elven-rings, great and small, is his province. He has long studied it, seeking the lost secrets of their making; but when the Rings were debated in the Council, all that he would reveal to us of his ring-lore told against my fears." [The Shadow of the Past]

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Was it, though? I don't recall posts with a longitudinal type of analysis comparing Bilbo "now" against Bilbo "then" within the same edition.

But since you bring it up, no, I don't think Bilbo's innate flaws increase; I just think that the range of application widened. In the Shire, his best and worst deeds were limited to the life of a haughty, comfortable, reasonably well-off hobbit, a life in which formalities could go for ethics, or etiquette for morality - a life in which written contracts matter and "1/14 share" would be calculated to the penny. In the "adventure" part of his travels, Bilbo's actions begin to have a much more profound impact on both himself and his companions. He realized that he has the power to do or not to do, which he can use to, say, save everyone's lives, or make an independent choice for himself. He has a choice to tell the Dwarves about the Ring, or to keep it a secret. Firstly, as Pitch mentioned above, part of his wanted to look daring and dashing to the Dwarves. They have been underestimating his value quite a lot, which would have increased the innate desire to prove oneself. But also there is the issue of independence. When the Dwares need Bilbo, their attitude is "You signed up for this, this is your quest too now, go do the dirty work". But once that's done, Bilbo is just "the burglar" - it's an "us vs him" scenario. Well, if he can't fully be part of this quest, soul and heart, he might as well become his own individual rather than a tag-along to wipe the dirt with. Independence isn't necessarily a lack of reliance; for Bilbo is just has to mean that his agenda does not necessarily hinge on the Dwarves, and having a secret of his own does precisely that. It gives a purpose to the adventure that is specific to him.

And as he discovers the consequences of his choices and actions, he also does a lot of reevaluating. The foundation and framework of his former life becomes less important to him than things that are above mere formality - like food and cheer... and bravery, and friendship, and selflessness, and many more. And at this point his conscience really wins out against any wandering greed, or cowardice, or comfort-seeking-ness, indecisiveness, selfishness, apathy, what have you.

Yes, had his conscience not won, he would have had a greater range of negative deeds at his disposal. But the change is not so much in his own qualities as it is with the range of application of those qualities, and the range of consequences they have on others.

So I have to agree with Morthoron here - the negative qualities Bilbo displays throughout the book are not born at the spur of the moment, they were always present in him - just controlled differently and pointed elsewhere. Likewise, his positive qualities aren't dropped down from the ceiling; they just lay dormant in him, snoozing away in a comfortable life.


EDIT: Just to point out, at this point in the story Gandalf isn't that well-versed in Ring-lore. I don't have FOTR with me, but from what I recall he made the trip to Gondor's library only after Bilbo returned home to the Shire - perhaps even after Bilbo's 111th birthday. The queer look he gives Bilbo after his glorified tale of his escape from the goblins is very much explicable just by the extravagance of the tale, and suspicions specific to the nature of the Ring are quite unlikely.

Hi Galadriel. Interesting thoughts

The longitudinal analysis, upon review of various entries upstream, was implicit in several of my posts, and possibly some of others. Occasionally I find that one evolves or unearths an ambiguous feature or element in an argument.

I'm going to go find some materials, I think for this one, and also for the 'editorial butchery' argument. I have no -- strong -- alliance to the 'Bilbo grew increasingly - evil' from 'Baseline Hobbit'svillian level' theory.

It's going to be a 'bit-of-a-son-of-an-unmarried-couple' to pin, either way, as elucidation of the position is:

1. Atypical argumentation style (i.e. non-canon, and inferential methodology).
2. It's going to be really difficult getting agreement about 'baseline hobbitish' dissembling tendency.
3. Difficult to locate specific textual features in the Hobbit (they are few, in explicit form and several more in the implicit form). As a 'theory' it's going to be, really, just discussion point.

I will attempt it though. Ungoliant seems to be sleeping atm. Shelob as well, good god! And Unlight to Light Tonite

Kind Regards

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Ungoliant seems to be sleeping atm. Shelob as well, good god! And Unlight to Light Tonite

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

I see then, the major means for 'picking holes' would really required knowing what it was that Allen and Unwin originally 'saw' and 'picked holes in' and then also, what major artefacts of Lore (e.g. Dragons, Rings) would have narrative - thematic level only (i.e. not detailed, just the major themes of mythology) - consistency in FA materials.

To the best of my knowledge, A & U didn't see anything of the First Age materials until after The Hobbit had been published and become a success and the question of a sequel came up, and then rejected it as unsuitable for the audience of TH - which is a good thing, for we wouldn't have The Lord of the Rings otherwise.

As for the state and themes of Tolkien's legendarium before and at the time of writing TH, the materials are all published and documented in the volumes of The History of Middle-earth. There were dragons, mostly used as war machines by Morgoth, but there was also already Glaurung (originally called Glórund), devastating the kingdom of Nargothrond and the lives of the the Children of Húrin. There was a lieutenant of Morgoth (long named Thû, later renamed Sauron) who had a thing for vampires and werewplves, a proficient shape-changer and dread interrogator who won a famous song contest with Felagund, but had yet nothing to do with rings of any kind (Eregion and the Gwaith-i-Mirdain only came into the picture during the writing of LotR). The only ring of any notability was the Ring of Doom, the place outside Valmar where the Valar sat in a circle in council or judgment.

The view that Tolkien wrote The Hobbit as a 'dumbed-down' version of his mythology to get it past a publisher doesn't hold in my opinion because the story wasn't originally devised for publication at all. He made it up as a bedtime story for his children, and elements of his mythology like dragons, dwarves, elves and goblins were used as narrative building bricks because they were lying around in his head anyway - readymades, if you like. But I don't think it was originally meant to be a canonic part of the legendarium any more than, say, Mr Bliss or Roverandom. It became so during the writing of its sequel, as more and more connections were drawn between the story of Mr Baggins, his heir and the Ring and the matter of the First and Second Ages. In the history of the legendarium at large, The Hobbit is, I think, best described as a detour on which hitherto uncharted territory was discovered and some older elements were seen in a new light - the Dwarves, for example, were mostly presented as hostile, treacherous creatures in the earlier material, and a character like Gimli would have been unconceivable then).

And I must say I object to the term 'dumbing down' with respect to The Hobbit. Sure, the mythological trappings are shoved far into the background, kinslaying and incest are completely absent, but we are recompensed for that with a detail and fullness of characterisation we don't find in the legends of the First Age. We get to know Bilbo Baggins better than we ever do Túrin or Beren or Fëanor, warts and wrinkles and all. The Hobbit was a huge progress for Tolkien as a writer without which he could never have given us The Lord of the Rings.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

why would anyone need to assign outside sources to Bilbo's behavior in The Hobbit, or, at least, The Hobbit before it was revised?

Mainly contrariness, like I said. My inner companion just handed me a prompt card, it reads *squints* "I may be wrong. Let's do it your way." But let's not be hasty and await Ivriniel's longitudinal analysis first.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

hahahahahahahahaha

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Now that we (every poster in this thread minus one poor sod) have reached consensus establishing that Bilbo's magic ring in the first edition of The Hobbit was not the One Ring of Lord of the Rings, the thought I had was -- why would anyone need to assign outside sources to Bilbo's behavior in The Hobbit, or, at least, The Hobbit before it was revised?

Bilbo Baggins was from the outset not a sterling and spotless individual. He was house-proud, rather haughty of his comfortable station and could be very rude in a Hobbitish manner. That he could be pompous, secretive, covetous and dissembling is not out of the realm of Hobbit character; in fact, there are many other instances of Hobbits behaving badly I'm sure we all can recall.

But he did manage, through adversity and his own reluctance, to do the right thing more often than not, and to do the right thing even when his inner stodgy-Baggins was arguing against his actions.

I'm starting here. A prefix post.

[spoof]This 'poor sod', is so very 'sodden' about the 'sod' who would need to use the word 'sod' to make a rather 'sodden story' about

misprocessing posts.

Of course, that was exactly ShelGoliant's vomit, Unlighted, friendliness. It's so very Morgothian-isatation and welcome-Un-warmingly, a bit like, "I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve". Thank for your - cause - to have me - smiling - again as I post, and read as I write. The -- need -- to personalise -- by -- group alliancing -- is of course, a bit like primate politics. Wait I'm a primate, I'm referring, or um, refereeing to myself, or. errrm, uuuum, just enjoying making myself --laugh--Who has a sense of humour, would I suppose as well, unless, Morgaron, it's going to be the --idiot-- who would --seriously??? take it so --seriously--that there is -- a seriously, serious ---need --- to um, UnAttack hahahah poster.

Lighten up - is it 'wench''missus''mister'sir, Sirius or Ungoliant....And seriously: (next post) serious means 'topical materials for context of the [/spoof]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH MY GOD, I have a HEADACHE hahaha, I've been researching, Morathon, and have actually, been idiotically dumb enough to actually really find -- a whole day-- to research a response

I have a headache hahaha, but "I did it just for you" hahahaha (as in, I really am laughing--at ? myself? I hope so? Because you/re not actually 'ere.

It's just text, my 'dear' um, (oh I don't want to be patronising), um what word is best, erm, 'kind morothon?" um -erm I just don't quite know how to 'thank you' for all your lovely words of welcome. So, I've entertained myself. Stopped caring. Researched it. And I'm going to write some of the finding up.

*coughs* ahhh, there's some 'each way' (ie it's not at all as you've surmised,yet not entirely is wise, to downgrade ur wisdom, moragon, entirely.

Similarly, as I've always said about textual-posting modes, context of authorship counts.

You have - squarely - distorted my position. However, I'm quite smilingly well about it. I will begin with the--short--correction and - outpouring of

1. A review of Tolkien's letters, in chronological order, against the truant dates in question (1937 onwards)
2. What we know about what Tolkien did and didn't say, about "The Ring" and certainly only "a ring" not "a Ring" at all in The hobbit, yet ver-ily hahaha nonetheless morthgoroan
3. Context - there certainly IS substance to matters in my materials, even though I'm the 'idiot' hahaha who purportedly idiotically didn't give rat's behind about part of your point, and did indeed care about part of your points.

Have I made my point? It's just fun, right?

Wait

3. UT and materials about Rings and Necromancers and SauronS (plural - Tolkien was rather 'dual-personality-ed' about things. Names evolved. Mythology shifted.
4. The correct point I made about 'pre-Hobbit Lore'.
5. The Hobbit version I have (I never claimed it was 'the original', nor did I ever care to ponder finding a dusty 1933 Hobbit version hahahaha. Back to The Future, please.
6. And six (as in the 'devil's number' hahaha) a book a found in my library, termed Master of Middle Earth, in a delightful return and review of materials.

[Ivriniel]

First up Morgathonron,

I've got about 300 posts here. Anyone who's read any of them, knows very well, that I so very seldom --care--to ground an argument in a specific date, or particularly narrow range of dates.

Because - Master Prof T (as Captain Janeway said "temporal causality loops give me a headache"), **never** wrote anything, ever, once, ever that didn't evolved by the time he started on the ensuing chapter of his 'next' works.

Ergo, I ***ditched*** a long time ago, the foolishly narrow attempt (self-reference, right. Put your ego away--no narcissism here please, it's boring) to 'prescribe' an 'exact' position about anything in the mythology.

I never claimed in any of my arguments that Ungoliant ate the Silmarils. Woops, I mean, I never - ever attempted - to EVER argue that "the 1876 version of the Hobbit, had The Ring (proper noun here please for the point of my item) first and foremost in the Prof's mind, and neither did I care, that he did or didn't.

All my materials were on another mode of methodological analysis, entirely. I prefer the mode that is about inferential 'diagnostic' or 'interpretation' of an author's 'tacit intention' and possibly 'explicit motivations and intentions'.

That is - putting as I did, about the longitudinal analysis --theory.

Even if the 500AD version of the Hobbit 'was written with the dreaded Chapter Five' 'winning riddle variation', what, still can we discern about "Ring-shness' (Proper noun here please) in the --implicit--text. Perhaps nothing. Perhaps not nothing. Perhaps some blend of the two.

Then - locate prose (from the Hobbit) to elucidate. AND

to address your other concerns. "Why would I go outside the Hobbit" to elucidate anything relevant.

Seriously, does that need a response? You know very well, I suspect that The prof had an ---obsession---- with publishing his primary love

The Silmarillion. In a multi-decade battle/exchange with Allen and Unwin, during which, there were indeed profound sanctioning pressures upon him to limit the scope of his narrative.

The anxiety in the Prof's letters about this, strikes me ***again*** as I review Letters, and I'm really surprised the point needs to be made.

Given such a background of anxiety and tussling with Allen and Unwin, for a Professor at a University, where you know very well there are significant torsions upon the self to present, argue, publish, write in a manner that very often deviates from how the core-self seek to write, are you saying that that background pressure was (not) operative (as) he wrote the Hobbit? I cannot -- support -- that tenet.

Ergo, why I interceded to introduce the background mythology - which of course -- was, as I stated, in place, partially at writing of the hobbit. Next post...a little more organised.

[Ivriniel]

1.Precursor Short Comment on Context for an 'Overall' Statement about the Mythology

From the book, Master of Middle Earth, authored by Paul Kocher.

"Tolkien's technique of purposeful ambivalence is well shown too in the Mumak of Harad which Same sees fighting on the side of the Southrons against Faramir's men in Ithilien: '…indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the like of him does not now walk in Middle Earth; his kin that live still in the latter days are but memories of his girth and majesty'". That, is the author goes on to interpret that – extending ambiguity as implicit in the 'what' any beast or artefact of Lore. The author goes on to adapt that to dragons and says, for example, "Tolkien is especially evasive about Angmar's huge winged steed" and "all these half-mythological creatures of Middle Earth are meant to subsist partly in our world, partly in another in which the imagination can make of it what it will".

and

He has a "…lifelong interest in Astrology…" which the author ascribes to Tolkien's calendars (Appendix D) Menelvagor (the Swordsman –Orion) Red Borgil, in The Sickle – Mars", in a modern heliocentric account of Arda (p. 6 Mater of Middle Earth, author, Paul Kocher).

Context materials are for the reader to hold in the background whilst perusing subsequent materials.

2. Chronological Review of The Hobbit's Publication in Second Context:- the Pre-Hobbit Materials Grounded in the Silmarillion - The Professor's Multi-Decade Obsession

Certainly, originally intended as a children's story--in context. It was not written in a mythological vacuum and certainly, there were predating themes very clearly driving Tolkien's mental and imaginary processes, at the time he wrote the Hobbit (the first one). Prima facie as put in Master of Middle Earth

"The Hobbit as being drawn irresistibly towards towards the materials he had been assembling for several years past to tell the history of the earlier ages of Middle Earth So much so that glimpses crept into 'unbidden of things higher or deeper of darker than its surface: Durin, Moria, Gandalf, the Necromancer, the Ring.' For the most part Tolkien manages to keep unobtrusive these 'unbidden' incursions of serious historical matter not properly germane to the children's story, but they do colour the tale and perhaps help to account for those graver, more adult touches we have been discussing. Contrariwise, the writing of The3 Hobbit may well have served to crystallize Tolkien's thoughts about th3e historical materials, and particularly seems to have supplied a num er of ideas that found their way, transformed, into his epic.".

However, the themes elaborated upon in LotR drew on what Tolkien himself has stated that were joining themes. In particular Letter 153 dated the 7th of June 1955. The Necromancer and The Ring were--inevitable--choice of links. The germ of the story was the Necromancer and The Ring. He does say, in a letter that the Ring was not originally high in his thinking or central to the LotR mythology when the original version was written {however, see below. It is not clear where his mind exactly was when made the statement--Hobbit dates are diabolically varied--see below}. In addition, in Letter 35 he took this path, it states, partly because readers had clambored for “more about the Necromancer” (2nd of February 1939).

However, Character transmutation and lore transmutations are -- rife -- in the mythology, and, for example, I recall even on his death bed, (I forget the citation at this time) he commented on the Celeborn and Galadriel, in a latter intended addendum. I can't remember if this one went 'Celeborn was of Eldamar and grandson of Elwe' or 'Celeborn wasn't', I forget). In any case, the argument is that as he writes, ideas morph, and certainly, even in current published tomes, this transmutation is apparent in characterisations--implicitly--in multiple locations. No doubt, for example, the 'Strider' we all know as was introduced, was not the same 'man' in Tolkien's head, by the time he completed the narrative. Clearly, the Hobbit did belong in Middle Earth where his 'precious' Silmarillion also belonged, and clearly, the Hobbit was not intended as 'a prequil' but nevertheless was a quarry for materials for the professor in any case for LotR, and *also* by 'back to the Future-reverso-ramas' -therefore - a joiner also for the FA. This was really, editorial pressure that forced his hand, and because he loved his mythology so very much, the man invented means to use a tool -- a book, the Hobbit that he really didn't foresee as 'the tool', yet tool it was--to bridge works.

Yes, in the first Hobbit, Chapter 5 was a variation on the Chapter 5 in subsequent publication. And it is not correct to say that the Ring itself was not 'the possession' of the Necromancer in -- not correct to say 'the first edition'. It is correct to say that the Ring was made to belong to the Necromancer -- even in the first edition -- very early after the completion of the Hobbit. Stated another way, The hobbit was a seriocomic adaptation, but nonetheless, it served the purposes of bridging anyway. Two tools: the Necromancer and the ring, very quickly The Ring, and even for which version? 1938. There is actually more to this story as well. That is, no, the '1938' version was not 'all there is dates that are relevant'.

Here in 1933 4 -

C.S. Lewis writes to lifelong friend Arthur Greeves about The Hobbit. He said "Since term began [on January 15] I have had a delightful time reading a children's story which Tolkien has just written . . . Whether it is really good (I think it is until the end) is of course another question: still more, whether it will succeed with modern children" (They Stand Together, collected letters from Lewis to Greeves, ed. Walter Hooper, No. 183).

Now, in October of 1936,The Hobbit is retyped, Allen and Unwin read the manuscript in Decemer and suggest he complete it. Then, in September of 1937, and in fact, December of 16-19 - Tolkien starts writing the first chapter of the "New Hobbit", which will later become The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien submits The Father Christmas Letters and The Silmarillion for publication but they are rejected. December of 1937

There is a triple-lock of FA, Hobbit, Revisions and Ring-LORE in 1937 WITH precursor Hobbit writings in 1933.

So - when we interpret from Letters that (see upstream) his 'original' Hobbit ring, was a ring, not a Ring, it is quite already diabolically difficult to disentangle which 'Hobbit' we mean when the Professor makes the concession that he didn't have a link between the Ring and the Necromancer in mind, at first rendition.

Further, he does give us some materials to pacify us. For example, in the 1966 Prologue of The Hobbit, (Second edition) he provides the variation "Of the Finding of the Ring, " stating the 'Bilbo lied to his friends' addendum and Gandalf as very 'strange and suspicious' which seeded the doubt that the Ring was innocent. Of course by this time, we all know that Gandalf knew the story of Sauron's ring. This was about the wondering of the cause of Bilbo's deceit and to connect it dimly with the Ring (part of my materials for the longitudinal analysis, which is pending).

3. What Tolkien said about the 'Schizophrenic' Two Versions of the Hobbit (I'm aware that psychosis and schizophrenia are the correct use of the term. I'm borrowing colloquial licence.

Letter 128, 1st of August 1950, and about Chapter 5, the new version of Chapter 5, "Riddles in the Dark" hits the shelves. Apparently, this came as a suprise to Tolkien (see the Letter). Tolkien wrote the first version of LotR with the UNmodified Hobbit in mind. He had not heard from publicists (again, indications of his weariness about the ongoing struggle with publicists), and so, without the Hobbit being revised, Tolkien went ahead with LotR and adapted the original Hobbit to it. The sequel now depended on the earlier version. The revision, if published, would entail much rewriting of the sequel. It seems that the FORMER was his original intention, even though the second variation (revised Hobbit) could provide a more convincing joiner.

4. Three More Letters, Highlighting the "Transmutation Hypothesis"

Letter 26, dated 4th of March 1938, Turning to his own works, Tolkien said that he had reached the end of the third chapter in the sequel to The Hobbit, but that the story had taken an unpremeditated turn (Three is Company. That is but one chapter beyond the Shadow of the Past and again his mind was evolving the narrative. Then, In letter31 (24th of July 1938), he states the book should have come in in 1938 not 1937 for time for the sequel in 1939. And that the Hobbit was not intended a prequil, because he was preoccupied with the Silmarilloion. However, the context, always with his communications to the Publisher was about anxiety about delays, appeals to understanding, tacit complaint because his loved Silmarillion was not published. Then on the 31st of August, 1938, letter 33. About LotR flowing along.

5. The Silmarillion. What part of which bit was published or ready pre Hobbit.

The Lay OF Leithian was first published in 1928. It had 557 lines by August 23, 1925. The next date appearing is is two and a half years later, 27-8 March, 1928, at line 1161. Afterwards, it was written fully to 1769 lines, up to 2929. Apparently the dates are for copying out of the manuscript, not for their writing, so Tolkien may well have had quite a number of additional passages or concepts earlier before he put them together. It was abandoned in September 1931. However, in 1930 he completes a full draft of The Silmarillion, which is later printed in The Shaping of Middle-earth.

Edit: I edited 'sequil' to 'prequil' in the second last paragraph (I HATE HAVING TO BE THIS PRESCRIPTIVE I ***HATE IT***).

[Ivriniel]

The information is incomplete. I have a social life and have to head out. I'll be back. There are quite a number of additional materials bearing upon my thinking in relation to the 'what' Tolkien 'did and didn't' have in his mind, at time of 'first' Hobbit.

Clearly, overall, however, we have FA materials bouncing about in his head. That means, reaching for inference beyond 'The Hobbit' about the ring, Ring or Rring or rRing *eyes crossed* is relevant.

Also, the "Longitudinal Hobbit Change" materials are not yet put down.

Enjoy your evenings.

and one re-quote of something important

The anxiety in the Prof's letters about this, strikes me ***again*** as I review Letters, and I'm really surprised the point needs to be made.

Given such a background of anxiety and tussling with Allen and Unwin, for a Professor at a University, where you know very well there are significant torsions upon the self to present, argue, publish, write in a manner that very often deviates from how the core-self seek to write, are you saying that that background pressure was (not) operative (as) he wrote the Hobbit? I cannot -- support -- that tenet.

Ergo, why I interceded to introduce the background mythology

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

[spoof]This 'poor sod', is so very 'sodden' about the 'sod' who would need to use the word 'sod' to make a rather 'sodden story' about

misprocessing posts.

Of course, that was exactly ShelGoliant's vomit, Unlighted, friendliness. It's so very Morgothian-isatation and welcome-Un-warmingly, a bit like, "I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve". Thank for your - cause - to have me - smiling - again as I post, and read as I write. The -- need -- to personalise -- by -- group alliancing -- is of course, a bit like primate politics. Wait I'm a primate, I'm referring, or um, refereeing to myself, or. errrm, uuuum, just enjoying making myself --laugh--Who has a sense of humour, would I suppose as well, unless, Morgaron, it's going to be the --idiot-- who would --seriously??? take it so --seriously--that there is -- a seriously, serious ---need --- to um, UnAttack hahahah poster.

You know, if you didn't like that, maybe you should have began by not ridiculing Morth's screen name. Just saying.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

I've got about 300 posts here.

Given that this thread does not yet top 100, this hyperbole seems a little over the top.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Anyone who's read any of them, knows very well, that I so very seldom --care--to ground an argument in a specific date, or particularly narrow range of dates.

Sadly that's true, but I still can't see why others should suffer because of your lack of argumentation - with dates or otherwise.

[Ivriniel]

I have some specific questions for Morthoron

1. Were you aware that the Hobbit had a pre-1937/8 variant as evidenced by CS Lewis's letter?
2. Were you aware about the state of the Lay of Leithian by 1933?
3. Were you aware that Tolkien's first adaption of LotR used the ***original*** Hobbit as its foundation.
4. Do you assert that the Prof didn't have ongoing anxiety and pressure from Allen and Unwin about publication deadlines (LotR), about despondency for repeated rejection of the Silarillion.
5. Were you aware that the Prof had a pre-Hobbit Silmarillion model?
6 The Devil's Number Do you assert that the 1933 version (typed and read by CS Lewis) or latter version was the one that Tolkien dissociates the ring from the Ring?

7. Did you known that Shelob ate the Silmarils? Or that Ungoliants wanted to eat the Silmarils, or do you assert that Earendil's refuse on Vingilot (what does he eat up there?) has Silmari 'glow' as he tosses out his bowel movements over Vingilot over Arda?

And Morthoron, I'm going to go back to the thread where I was accused of being a 'Troll', and after it, I received a PM pointing out that someone had been PM'd stating that someone else had gone too far.*

I don't remember if it was you who said 'I was a troll', but at the time, actually, I didn't even read it ahahahahah.

as I said, get a sense of humour and seriously, the funniest question: please respondS [Gollum] to number 7

Kind Regrds

[Edit]*names and stones and fixed up tomes, and words that do not break bones[/edit]

STAVROS