Bilbo´s treachery

[Ivriniel]

Information Summary Post: Key Themes and Examples of Information

1. Lalaith's Premises (awesome topic)

a. Arenstone-ian stealth in stealing, stones of staining, the heart of Dwarves - Dwarvish Rage is Thorin's province. 'Moral Outrage, treacherous Bilbo'.
b. Thranduil is the scavenger - 'creature to Crebain - Thranduil-ian craven'.
c. Bilbo, during the Battle of the Five Armies, "preferred on the whole to defend the Elven King". What exactly has Thranduil done to deserve this loyalty?

2. Morality-Legality Distinctions - Propriety and Personality & Cannon

a. The Moral Share/Legal Share distinction. Thraduil-ian-craven - beware!
b. HUMOUR - Legal-ese Rear-ends, and unstoppable cerebral bearing!
c. HUMOUR - Awesome!
d. Balancing motivations - Pride and Loss - Inverted across the Races.
e. Nice Synthesis By Galadriel!
f. Posts 59, 61, 94, 101, 104, and meh, 75/25 weighting to post 80 (it's the restating that weakens it. Once is enough).
g. rIngs of power and Rings of Power - power begone and Power begone - the ring (not the Ring) is everywhere.

3. Arkenston-ean-Dwarvish-Greed-Beware!!! Ash-Nazg Arkenstone, Durbataluk! Arkenstone, Arkenstone, you are EVERYWHERE

a. Some stone in the ground glows a bit like glowsticks at a Nighclub, but more than 1/14th of the wealth to only some.

4. Serious, Thoughtful, Considered -

a. Insights about Warring Peoples

I). "The Common Enemy Unites Us"..
II). Where 'stealing' to one sight, is heroism in self-sacrifice to another. Urgency to Stop Killing - primary motivation.

b). Awesome Redirective Focus Post: Focal Distinctions: The Canon Analysis V And/Or the Narrative Analysis Distinction AndOr Hindsight/Foresight Positioning (at a particular date) During Post Construction

5. Hiding under rocks Or Enjoying Being Flattened as the Rock you thought you were hiding under (and clinging to) started rolling down the Hill...QUICKLY.

a. Hiding without a magic ring is hard!.
b. Backpeddling - after being flattened, correctly.
c. Funny how 'little red squares' have this way of appearing at times.
d. "I don't like ....me.....do you like .....you. Didn't work! The Rock Rolls faster and faster down the hill. I'm getting very flat!

6. Really Bad Posts (Falls from Grace-the Devil's Number 666 - or Melkor Upon Us From the Void - and Grace Repair - Quick Quick Quick)

a. The Lidless Eye is literally hot. Annatar is 'hot'. Context Blunders and Unthoughtful Thunders.
b. Ramblings and Ramblings.

7. Humour I Missed Along the Road - and Special Thank YouZ (A Liberty Taken by Me for Cutting the Post after Summarising)

a. Awesome Post - Thank you kindly for your manners.
b. Awesome Start Here Galadriel - A Belly Laugh Upon Me as I Type! Kind Regards..
c. "....Once again your strain position...." it starts AGAIN, the WORMHOLE EFFECT, ANOTHER BELLY LAUGH, Kind Regards Mor.....gg...Morthor_n! Phew! .
d. "...oh and I did paddle the turgid straits and navigated the frothy....." ungoliants, "...upstream". Another Awesome one.
e. "...you may think your gibberish you are typing..." GRINNING/HURTING STOMACH AGAIN - Funny Bone alert.
f. "...getting closer to ungoliant...." - Kind Regards Morthoron
g. "...circum.."lociously, deliciously, Ungoliantines "...circumlocutious...", "...latitudinal..." arguments, "...rambling...obtuse", migrating patterns of Subterranean Silmarils, Skiing Balrogs, and Balrogs that retire with Needlecraft.
h. I've edited your post for clarity by omitting most ......" of it but! "...I'll leave in the juvenile misspelling of my name" Kind Regards Mor- *coughs..struggles....squirms...* "-thoron.
I. Kindness, and warmth.

And -

MY FAVOURITE POST and
SECOND FAVOURITE of Morthoron's Cited.

[Edit]12/09/2015 @ 7:31 am (Aus-EST): a) Integration of Posts 123 thru 125 & b) Reorganisation of Post[/Edit]

[Ivriniel]

Response to Posts Deferred For Comment - More to Say With Canon-ites

Post 59
Post 61

Unfinished Business

1. Please, threadkeeper Lalaith, if you want, claim ownership to the Summary Post and modify it!!! It's a really cool idea we all used to do at a really fun Geek Forum that was also ultra serious and ultra fun, all at once. Unfortunately, it's gone now. I realise it's not about me, but everyone. I just wanted to 'kick start' the idea. "Threadkeepers" at the other Forum all used to do it.
2. The thing, that was the original thing, long long ago, I was going to say, at about post minus 10. The "Bilbo Changed" theory (even though and despite, and so it is, and well it is, and Baggines, that it's a look at Hobbit Version -- "that new one I read" (Alias, Title - Terminator Series Adaptation, "The Dreaded White at Bag End") - "Longitudinal Theory about Bilbo's Transmutation". Four Premises:

a. Hobbit's Baseline tendencies for Evil/Treachery/Deception/Greed.
b. Bilbo's Baseline tendencies.
c. How did he change, along the way.
d. Did this influence his 'treachery' to handover the Silmari...Arkenstone.

Or said to the Canon-ites

Where did the prof spot 'R..ing'-consistent themes in the Dancing Dark Lords in Children's Head's (Fairytale) version of Hobbit - ORIGINAL or REVISED - and the key word is **retrospectively**?

[Mithadan]

Regardless of the commotion that this thread has engendered, there is an interesting theme that is worthy of discussion here. The Ring (or ring) is the bridge between The Hobbit and LoTR. The question of whether Bilbo has come under the effect of the One (by concealing the Ring/ring from Gandalf, by lying about it/ by taking/stealing/earning the Arkenstone) is, in reality, a matter of subjective perspective.

What is your focus? Do you view the texts from the perspective of the (historical) drafter? Do you hone in upon the fact that The Hobbit was completed before the "bridge" of the One Ring was conceived as the basis for interpreting Bilbo's motives? Is this a valid view?

Or do you view the texts from the perspective of the (post revised Hobbit) reader, looking to perceive a smooth transition between the works and, more importantly, a uniform tale from Gandalf's first arrival at Bag End to Sam's sad return to Bag End?

If the latter, then it is entirely possible that the Ring ( as opposed to the ring) may have influenced Bilbo's choices. Just days ago I noted that Isildur, having possessed the Ring for a matter of hours, could not make the right decision: to destroy the Ring. Bilbo, possessing the Ring for a period of time even longer, could have been influenced by its evil animus.

If the former, then Bilbo possessed a curiosity, a ring of invisibility. Interesting, but unimportant except as a device within the tale. The ring could not have influenced events. It had noting to do with Bilbo's choice regarding the Arkenstone or his concealment of the ring from Gandalf. It was not THE ONE.

Which is it? Let's proceed (if at al) in a civil manner, please.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

If the latter, then it is entirely possible that the Ring ( as opposed to the ring) may have influenced Bilbo's choices. Just days ago I noted that Isildur, having possessed the Ring for a matter of hours, could not make the right decision: to destroy the Ring. Bilbo, possessing the Ring for a period of time even longer, could have been influenced by its evil animus.

Even if you choose to interpret the works of J.R.R. Tolkien as continuous and uniform world, you'd still have to explain why the Ring would play a part in Bilbo's decision to take, keep and give away the Arkenstone. And that's where the argument looses me. Exactly what decision is supposed to be influenced by the Ring? The initial and spontaneous impulse to take the Arkenstone in the first place? Keeping it a secret? Or giving it away to enforce a peaceful compromise?!

For the point of the ongoing discussion I'll take the following as a starting point:

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

It seems you argued that the Ring may (or may not) have influenced the whole package, from the taking to the giving away of the Arkenstone. Besides, it seems to me that you are implying that Bilbo conceived the plot with the intention to harm the Company and put them in a disadvantageous position. I have a few problems with that. Bilbos motivation for his plot, to give the Arkenstone away, is very well fleshed out in the Hobbit. He wanted to put an end to a deadlocked and dangerous conflict. He just wanted to get home. To achieve that he gave the only thing away which could be used as leverage against Thorin. He didn't put "the dwarves" on the back foot. He chose to give up his own share and reward to ensure a reasonable and peaceful solution to the given situation. The dwarves would have had the same amount of Gold, Bard would have his fair share and nobody would have to die. I try really hard to understand how the Ring of Power, the pinnacle of evil, could have had any influence in this motivation. Does anything comparable happen in the LotR-novels? The Ring usually doesn't support altruistic and problem solving behaviour. I fail to see how the Ring could have had any effect in Bilbo's decision to give the Arkenstone away. Bilbo doesn't get anything (no power, no wealth and no honor) from his plan, except for the possibility that he may see his beloved Hobbit-hole again. For me, that's as atypical for the kind of influence the Ring has on people, as it gets.

Yes, the Ring does alter the personality and actions of a person. And yes, Bilbo's deed could be (unfairly, imho) interpreted as dishonest and treacherous. But I still don't see a connection between those two things. The Ring influences his owner in a very specific way. It's not like it reinforces immoral actions in general. During the course of the story (LotR) we don't see Bilbo, or Frodo, becoming bad persons, or acting more and more selfish and immoral. At worst they get defensive and delusional when it comes to the question of their claim to the Ring. But usually they are still the normal, generous and kind Hobbits they've always been, despite the fact that they have kept the Ring for such a long time.

[Mithadan]

Let me clarify. It cannot be doubted that Bilbo's decision to turn the Arkenstone over to Bard was motivated by good intentions. But the decision to take the Arkenstone and later conceal it after Thorin began searching for it is a bit out of character for Bilbo. Could this be the Ring's effect (from the perspective of a coherent story)? Perhaps. He thinks to himself that Thorin's offer that he could pick and choose his share might not extend to the jewel. Thorin later names the Arkenstone to himself, but Bilbo does not come forward.

But candidly, the language used by Tolkien suggests another explanation. "Bilbo's arm went to it drawn by its enchantment." One can also refer to the poem The Hoard found in Adventures of Tom Bombadil where he discusses the power and bewilderment of treasure. The original title of this poem (it was first published in 1923 in a Leeds University magazine) Iumonna Gold Galdre Bewunden, meaning Gold of Men Enmeshed In Enchantment (See Annotated Hobbit, p. 288). This is a recurring theme in Tolkien's works, the love of treasure as a motivator towards either evil or bad decisions. I tend to favor this explanation of the Arkenstone incident.

However you slice it, Bilbo's concealment of the Ring from Gandalf and his taking and retention of the Arkenstone is not typical behavior. The cause? It could just as easily be the allure and glamor of fantastic treasure as the emerging effects of the Ring.

By the way, Gandalf's "more than meets the eye" comment after Bilbo explains his escape from Goblin Town (omitting the Ring) and the long stare that Gandalf gives to Bilbo as if he doubts some of the tale is in the original, pre-LoTR edition for those keeping score on the ring vs. Ring issue.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

But candidly, the language used by Tolkien suggests another explanation. "Bilbo's arm went to it drawn by its enchantment." One can also refer to the poem The Hoard found in Adventures of Tom Bombadil where he discusses the power and bewilderment of treasure. The original title of this poem (it was first published in 1923 in a Leeds University magazine) Iumonna Gold Galdre Bewunden, meaning Gold of Men Enmeshed In Enchantment (See Annotated Hobbit, p. 288). This is a recurring theme in Tolkien's works, the love of treasure as a motivator towards either evil or bad decisions. I tend to favor this explanation of the Arkenstone incident.

I think back to the time at Bag End where the Dwarves sang their song before setting out.
There, Bilbo listened and was "enchanted" to some extent, sharing the love the Dwarves had for jewels and such, out of character for most Hobbits in itself.
He'd had much time since then to hear the Dwarves talking about all that treasure, and had also spoken with the dragon who stole the hoard. I favor those things as influencing Bilbo's behavior.

[Ivriniel]

@ Leaf Hi there Leaf Nice to meet you! I've not 'met' one of your posts yet, so I thought I'd start with this hello, but I'll come back (to this post) to back edit, after the 'hello', in a day or so.

(I loved your post. It's deliciously inventive (in its analysis of my content) and I'm delighted to see your comments).

Kind Regards

Iv-goniel

@ Mithadan - what an awesome summation. I've updated the Summary Post (to put some new stuff in).

@ Reader.

Pondering textual analysis. in meantime

1. Text from the perspective of the historical drafter with focus upon:

a. Some ideas about Tolkien's original draft notes of LotR (see Letters and those for which he has written LotR to conform to Hobbit pre-sequel 'ring-to-Ring' - 1937 version).
b. The significance of that. The professor must have had some ideas, himself, about how to 'multiply infer/interpret' new or bridging ideas from the very one and the same text - himself. This I think goes to the 'Evil Animus' point, made, upstream. I'll --add--here the dormant or hidden Animus of the Ring - after some 3000 years and while Sauron/Necromancer was == weaker.

2. A focus upon the Hobbit-V2 and the Allen and Unwin LotR we all know in the 21st Century on the Shelves (which was where I entered this conversation, many moons ago, and then added in a 'mini research project' where I unearthed stuff I could add in, in 1.)

a. The 'Ring'* in the Hobbit. Despite it being a children's story, in its inception, nonetheless, with its edits in the now Un-ungolianted (or de-Ungolianted, or just UN-golianted) (i.e. revised Chapter V) of the delightful 1966 Edition and so on. (i.e. the chapter that corrected the Tome has been, no doubt, a controversy of various kinds in history. I'm sure Tolkien had a headache at times. Imagine his wrath? exhaustions? when he typed up early materials for LotR, to conform to Hobbit 1, and then hears back from editors 'na, na, na, John. You need to fix the Hobbit and re-work LotR'. I've cited Letters and such, in a post that found this stuff**.

Perhaps I've misinterpreted? I'm not a trained Tolkien Scholar, so I'm happy to be corrected. Does anyone know more on this topic?

*noting that in lower case - as a ring, in the book, observes the 'duality' of this textual item, all the way through to the 21st century.
** left blank

Back later (to this post) Kind Regards

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

Let me clarify. It cannot be doubted that Bilbo's decision to turn the Arkenstone over to Bard was motivated by good intentions. But the decision to take the Arkenstone and later conceal it after Thorin began searching for it is a bit out of character for Bilbo. Could this be the Ring's effect (from the perspective of a coherent story)? Perhaps. He thinks to himself that Thorin's offer that he could pick and choose his share might not extend to the jewel. Thorin later names the Arkenstone to himself, but Bilbo does not come forward.

But candidly, the language used by Tolkien suggests another explanation. "Bilbo's arm went to it drawn by its enchantment." One can also refer to the poem The Hoard found in Adventures of Tom Bombadil where he discusses the power and bewilderment of treasure. The original title of this poem (it was first published in 1923 in a Leeds University magazine) Iumonna Gold Galdre Bewunden, meaning Gold of Men Enmeshed In Enchantment (See Annotated Hobbit, p. 288). This is a recurring theme in Tolkien's works, the love of treasure as a motivator towards either evil or bad decisions. I tend to favor this explanation of the Arkenstone incident.

However you slice it, Bilbo's concealment of the Ring from Gandalf and his taking and retention of the Arkenstone is not typical behavior. The cause? It could just as easily be the allure and glamor of fantastic treasure as the emerging effects of the Ring.

By the way, Gandalf's "more than meets the eye" comment after Bilbo explains his escape from Goblin Town (omitting the Ring) and the long stare that Gandalf gives to Bilbo as if he doubts some of the tale is in the original, pre-LoTR edition for those keeping score on the ring vs. Ring issue.

That's a different argument all together. If you really want to fit the Idea of the Ring into this situation, I guess you can suspect that it played a role in the taking of the Arkenstone. I still dont find it to be a compelling argument. I don't know of any case in which the Master Ring creates or amplifies greed for worldly things.

And the notion that the taking of the Arkenstone is a out of character moment for Bilbo is a little dubious. Here's a quote from the very first chapter:

"As they sang the Hobbit felt the love of beautiful things made by hands and by cunning and by magic moving through him, a fierce and jealous love, the desire of the hearts of dwarves." It is set up from the very beginning of the story that Bilbo is receptive to this fierce and jealous love for beautiful things.

I agree with you. This explanation seems to be the more elegant and interesting one. It's well founded withing the text of the given novel and doesn't need an exterior explanation to make sense.


Edit: Inziladun beat me to it

[Zigûr]

Yes, to agree with Inzil and Leaf, it seems thematically appropriate to me in The Hobbit that Bilbo's taking of the Arkenstone is consistent with the book's own discussion of the allure of precious things. This theme, I would argue, doesn't require the Ring to be malignant in any further capacity to function in the text.

What is perhaps effective about this in The Hobbit is that the Arkenstone needs no particular "magic" to operate in this way. Its "enchantment" seems to be its own lustre and desirability.

Originally Posted by Leaf

I don't know of any case in which the Master Ring creates or amplifies greed for worldly things.

I suppose you could consider the effect the Seven had on the Dwarves ("The only power over them that the Rings wielded was to inflame their hearts with a greed of gold and precious things, so that if they lacked them all other good things seemed profitless, and they were filled with wrath and desire for vengeance on all who deprived them."), but on the other hand that seems to be a peculiar effect the Great Rings had on Dwarves specifically, such that it couldn't be stated definitively that the One Ring would necessarily have the same effect on Hobbits.

On the other hand, it's probably a good thing that the Ring of Thrór was lost before Thorin could inherit it - imagine how much more unreasonable he might have been had he possessed it!

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

Let me clarify. It cannot be doubted that Bilbo's decision to turn the Arkenstone over to Bard was motivated by good intentions. But the decision to take the Arkenstone and later conceal it after Thorin began searching for it is a bit out of character for Bilbo. Could this be the Ring's effect (from the perspective of a coherent story)? Perhaps. He thinks to himself that Thorin's offer that he could pick and choose his share might not extend to the jewel. Thorin later names the Arkenstone to himself, but Bilbo does not come forward.

I want to throw out another couple ideas in regards to this. First of all, regardless of what motivated Bilbo to take the Arkenstone in the first place, I always had the feeling that after that moment of weakness he never really meant to keep it, he just didn't know how to come forwards about it without enraging the Dwarves (who would predictably be disproportionately mad at Bilbo for taking the stone and would not appreciate the effort of conscience and morality that it took to overcome the barriers to breaking the truth to them voluntarily until it would be too late - because that's what happens nearly every time Bilbo pulls off a trick). Thus, I don't see the Ring as a factor at all in keeping the Arkenstone secret. It would be natural for anyone who knows what the Dwarves are like with their gratitude and their jewels to keep something like this quiet; but also, it seems to me that Bilbo didn't want to keep that secret and was looking for an alternative way out of the situation. He does feel rather guilty about the whole thing, and most likely regretted taking the darned stone in the first place. Having the stone - and especially keeping it secret - ain't giving him any pleasure at all.

I can see how it can be argued that the Ring had a hand in pushing Bilbo to take the Stone, though I don't think that's the prime motivator. I suppose it's not out of character for the Ring to whisper thoughts like "It's just fair, you deserve it, what do you owe to them, you're not technically breaking your written contract, you're still a good Gollu... hobbit, it's the Dwarves who are the mean ones and the cheaters". But Bilbo knew when he took the stone that he just wants to feel this way to justify taking the stone. He is aware that he's making excuses for himself, and sad excuses at that. Besides, he's at the point where he appreciates unwritten bonds above written contracts, and he knows that he violates something much more important than the legal definition of "1/14 of the profits". He knows that, and he still takes the stone, because of his own inner weakness. He conquers it, of course, and he wouldn't ever be likely to repeat that mistake, but it was a moment of his own internal weakness.

Finally, I want to bring up a general pattern seen throughout the legendarium in regards to jewels and riches, a pattern in part borrowed from real-world mythologies. The most beautiful things inspire greed and almost unconscious acts of unnecessary harshness. Personalities become distorted, people become cruel and unsharing, and those who aspire to claim some of those treasures evoke a very similar response to the reaction of Ringbearers when someone broaches the subject of taking away the Ring. The First Age is filled with such examples - the Nauglamir, the hoard of Nargothrond, the Silmarili alone could fill up several pages of analysis from their creation until Maglor throws the last one into the Sea. The Arkenstone (and the rest of the dragon hoard as well) is an extension of the same pattern. The examples mentioned above by other posters (Bilbo enchanted by the Dwarves' song, his hand drawn by the stone's enchantement) are referring to this aspect of treasure. Bilbo's action is very much continuous with this pattern, Ring or no Ring - an external source isn't needed to be present to give Bilbo the push. Moreover, ascribing this action to the Ring takes away from the concept of greed and the enchantment of the treasure. Treasure does not need to have this effect anymore, this power, if it's just the Ring at work. If we assume that the Ring is a prime motivator in Bilbo's choice, or the prime reason for his weakness - it is belittling the beauty and power of the Arkenstone both as the element of the story and as a symbol. I think that goes against what the rest of the story has been trying to convey to the readers about this stone.

I think it's possible that the Ring had a hold on Bilbo, but I do not think that in this case it was a motivator. In any situation, his actions seem perfectly explicable without the presence of the Ring, so even if its influence was there, it was too subtle to be a main factor. I cannot think of any such instance, which is why I am asking you - is there any point in the story where Bilbo makes a choice that is aligned with the "desires" of the Ring, that he would not have made without it? If a good examples of that is out there, then the flip side can be argued. As it is, though, it seems that there is no strong evidence to support the Ring influence case.

Lastly, since this has been mentioned previously: yes, Isildur wasn't able to destroy the Ring after possessing it for only a few hours, and Frodo sure didn't like it when Gandalf chucked the Ring into the fireplace. But both of these situations involve some threat to the Ring - and quite a direct threat at that. On the contrary, in Bilbo's case the Ring is quite safe and happy. None of his plans appear to involve any harm (direct or indirect) being done to the Ring. If Bilbo had to give his ring to Bard and Thranduil rather than the Arkenstone - oh how the story might have gone differently. But he wasn't, so there isn't much reason for a burst of activity from the Ring.