|
 |
|
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
12-07-2015, 07:33 AM
|
#122 |
|
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 430
 |
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**? Last edited by Ivriniel; 12-07-2015 at 09:10 AM. |
|
|
|
12-07-2015, 08:51 PM
|
#123 |
|
Spirit of Mist
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tol Eressea
Posts: 3,393
|
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.
__________________
Beleriand, Beleriand, the borders of the Elven-land. |
|
|
|
|
12-08-2015, 08:01 AM
|
#124 | ||
|
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 87
|
Quote:
For the point of the ongoing discussion I'll take the following as a starting point: Quote:
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. Last edited by Leaf; 12-08-2015 at 10:58 AM. |
||
|
|
|
|
12-08-2015, 01:47 PM
|
#125 |
|
Spirit of Mist
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tol Eressea
Posts: 3,393
|
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.
__________________
Beleriand, Beleriand, the borders of the Elven-land. |
|
|
|
|
12-08-2015, 02:17 PM
|
#126 | |
|
Gruesome Spectre
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Heaven's doorstep
Posts: 8,039
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Music alone proves the existence of God. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2015, 02:18 PM
|
#127 | |
|
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 87
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2015, 02:39 PM
|
#128 | |
|
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 785
|
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. Quote:
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!
__________________
"Since the evening of that day we have journeyed from the shadow of Tol Brandir." "On foot?" cried Éomer. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2015, 03:09 PM
|
#129 |
|
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 430
|
@ 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).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 Last edited by Ivriniel; 12-08-2015 at 03:53 PM. |
|
|
|
|
12-08-2015, 04:08 PM
|
#130 | |
|
Blossom of Dwimordene
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The realm of forgotten words
Posts: 10,491
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
You passed from under darkened dome, you enter now the secret land. - Take me to Finrod's fabled home!... ~ Finrod: The Rock Opera |
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2015, 04:28 PM
|
#131 |
|
Wight of the Old Forest
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Unattended on the railway station, in the litter at the dancehall
Posts: 3,329
|
Thank you, Mithadan, for nudging this meandering/maundering thread back on track.
I've said most of what I have to say about the Arkenstone up in post #77, but I think I concur with Leaf and Inzil that Bilbo's love for beautiful things, together with the stone's own enchantment, was quite enough motivation for him to take it. Let's also not forget that the whole treasure - including, if I'm not very mistaken, the Arkenstone - had long been lain on by a dragon, and a dragon's hoard has a glamour that fascinates and awakes covetousness even more than 'normal' gold, does it not? You know, I find that the whole scene of Bilbo taking the Arkenstone reminds me a bit of Pippin taking the palantír of Orthanc from Gandalf. Two hobbits, two stones wrought with great art in days long past, one scintillating with light, the other dark, but glowing with a heart of fire. And both hobbits grab the shiny mystery, even though both know they shouldn't. Was it just the Took in Bilbo that made him take the Arkenstone? Now as for keeping the stone secret even after Thorin had claimed it for himself, I originally thought that quite suspicious behaviour, but Galadriel55 made a valid point that Thorin was showing increasing signs of dragon gold madness at that time, and Bilbo may have been (rightly) afraid that Old Oakenshield would blow up in his face if he learned that Bilbo had found the stone and said nothing. And I think it's fair to assume that Mr Baggins hadn't remained totally untouched by the treasure's glamour himself, as Mithadan already said. ________________________________________ Iviriniel, as for Tolkien's first drafts for LotR: it's a while since I read The Return of the Shadow, Vol. 6 of of The History of Middle-earth, in which they're all published, but IIRC he started with Bilbo leaving Bag-End for more adventures but no clear idea what these would be. One idea was that Bilbo had used up all his gold and was looking for more, driven by the dragon sickness, but he (=JRRT) found that idea unsatisfying. At some point he decided that the hero wouldn't be Bilbo himself but a younger relative of his (long named Bingo but finally renamed Frodo), accompanied by some of his friends/cousins who also went through some wild name changes, but he still had no idea what the adventure would really be about. At that point, I think, he sat down to consider which motives he hadn't used up in TH, and, ending up with the Necromancer and the r/Ring, jotted down a note (some time in late '37/early '38, but don't pin me down on it): "The ring - where does it come from? Necromancer?" As we know, that was a fruitful idea, and everything started to gel. He first cnsidered the ring harmless if used for good purposes, but harmful if kept too long, but by and by the ring became the Ring, the One, ash nazg durbathulûk, Once that was clear, the original version of TH Chapter 5, where Gollum was willing to give Bilbo the Ring, became, of course, untenable, because the Prof's conception of Gollum's character had changed and he realized that Gollum could never have given up his precious. So the original Ch. 5 was explained as being a cover-up by Bilbo. Only in the 1966 edition of TH, IIRC, was that chapter told as it was now, after the change, conceived to have really happened, with Gollum planning to murder Bilbo and "Thief! Baggins! We hates it forever!" Does that answer any of your questions? _______________________________________________ (x-ed with Gal55; our dogs are bonkers tonight.)
__________________
Und aus dem Erebos kamen viele seelen herauf der abgeschiedenen toten.- Homer, Odyssey, Canto XI |
|
|
|
|
12-08-2015, 05:07 PM
|
#132 | |
|
Blossom of Dwimordene
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The realm of forgotten words
Posts: 10,491
|
Quote:
__________________
You passed from under darkened dome, you enter now the secret land. - Take me to Finrod's fabled home!... ~ Finrod: The Rock Opera |
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2015, 05:24 PM
|
#133 | |
|
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 430
|
Quote:
"Earthfriend," breathed Pitchwife, "what will you do? (I'm going to from time to time resurrect that ole' thread of yours. It's gunna be one of those 'got new idea' once, that 'keep bouncing back to life' It's very appreciated Pitchwife, ur response. I'll be back soon to (back-edit this one), as well. I've got to head out, but saw ur light on, and so quickly dropped in. [PS]: I used to GM at Forum (about 2 years 'way back when' as GM (Game Master), not moderator. Hard going, without powers to curb, one had to invent on-post means. Thread started with my joining (by choice) the most unpopular group - the Half-Elven Foundation. We, over time, made it a 5000 post thread. As you can imagine - skirmishes and blowouts sometimes - but it was a vibrant busy place soon enough. I've always said it's 'coming back' that's best-est of all I'm going to update my sig, and put out a call to 'em. It was pre-Facebook/social media. We all lost each other when the Boards closed around 2005. I found one of them recently.[/PS]@Mithadan (is this allowed here? or....how strict is the 'on-topic' standard? the 'ps' thing, and variations, was what some of ways we spoke at the Foundations. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2015, 05:26 PM
|
#134 | ||
|
Wight of the Old Forest
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Unattended on the railway station, in the litter at the dancehall
Posts: 3,329
|
Let me return the compliments:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Und aus dem Erebos kamen viele seelen herauf der abgeschiedenen toten.- Homer, Odyssey, Canto XI Last edited by Pitchwife; 12-08-2015 at 05:28 PM. Reason: x-ed with Ivriniel |
||
|
|
|
|
12-08-2015, 05:57 PM
|
#135 |
|
Gruesome Spectre
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Heaven's doorstep
Posts: 8,039
|
Leaving aside the RL points about the Ring as conceptualized in The Hobbit vs. LOTR, can we look at another Ring-bearer to see if it seems to have pushed him to any treachery?
Frodo began his time as a Bearer after Sauron's power was greater than at the tine of the Battle of Five Armies, after the latter had returned to Mordor and openly declared himself. Is there any indication on Frodo's part of him betraying his friends, or wanting to? Any suggestion of an usual greed that does not pertain to the Ring itself?
__________________
Music alone proves the existence of God. |
|
|
|
|
12-08-2015, 07:11 PM
|
#136 | |
|
Blossom of Dwimordene
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The realm of forgotten words
Posts: 10,491
|
Quote:
Let's take a glance at yet another Ringbearer, who - like Bilbo - was unaware of the Ring's nature: Smeagol. Within seconds of seeing the thing, he kills his best friend to get hold of it. He then proceeds to sneak around, steal things, be generally nasty to those around him, ruin every relationship he ever had, and get kicked out of his family with shame. While killing Deagol is explained by the Ring evoking possessiveness, and getting chucked out is explained with the formidable grandmother, stealing and sneaking are the aspects of Gollum's behaviour I want to emphasize. He wasn't a model boy before the Ring either, but it seems that such a rapid downfall was augmented and sped up by the Ring's presence. Perhaps it was the power of invisibility, which Smeagol applied to crooked uses (and the new ability just enhanced what character was already present), but here I think the argument that the Ring corrupted Gollum seems just as compelling. Or rather, I should say that it looks like an even mix of the two. There is certainly a meanness in him to serve as the base, but the decline seems too rapid to be of Smeagol's doing alone, and some habits, like muttering or speaking in plural about oneself (really, referring to himself and the Ring) aren't explained by Gollum's initial personality. So go figure. 
__________________
You passed from under darkened dome, you enter now the secret land. - Take me to Finrod's fabled home!... ~ Finrod: The Rock Opera |
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2015, 08:45 PM
|
#137 | ||
|
Gruesome Spectre
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Heaven's doorstep
Posts: 8,039
|
Quote:
Quote:
 ) nature. We don't really know of the time frame involved in the transformation from Sméagol the Stoor into Gollum though, do we? It might not have been a terribly short time. A few years at least, maybe. Bilbo lacked the 'basic materials' for which the Ring had an affinity, though. He was not a sneak or a thief by nature, and I think it unlikely the Ring influenced his decision to take the Arkenstone.
__________________
Music alone proves the existence of God. |
||
|
|
|
|
12-08-2015, 09:02 PM
|
#138 | |
|
Blossom of Dwimordene
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The realm of forgotten words
Posts: 10,491
|
Quote:
__________________
You passed from under darkened dome, you enter now the secret land. - Take me to Finrod's fabled home!... ~ Finrod: The Rock Opera |
|
|
|
|
|
12-09-2015, 01:20 AM
|
#139 | |
|
Spirit of Mist
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tol Eressea
Posts: 3,393
|
Quote:
Given the gyrations this thread has taken, I wonder how many of the current posters on this thread have read the first post, which framed the "topic". One reason that we encourage staying on topic is to encourage discussion. If a thread goes in too many directions, it becomes hard to respond to and difficult to follow. A new issue that is too far afield from the topic being discussed should be raised as a new thread. This gives us more to talk about and improves the focus of the forum. There are altogether too few new threads being started right now and we encourage it. So, a brief "ps" is ok occasionally but it should not be longer than the point being made in a post and if directed to a single member should be done in a pm.
__________________
Beleriand, Beleriand, the borders of the Elven-land. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-09-2015, 03:00 AM
|
#140 | |
|
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 430
|
Quote:
My LAST post, about further thoughts. I've taken enough of your time. Whatever you say about it all (if anything), I'll simply read, accept and move forwards. I assume (please correct me if I'm off target), terms of manners (e.g. 'sorry', etc ie emoticons stuff) is okay. And also that 'thread cross linking?' (i.e. cross-discussion links), are okay. Some forum frown on it, for different reasons. Please correct me on any of the following if needed. I'm not at all presuming the ideas are 'permitted'. However: This topic here, I'm going to make 'home' (it's the one I used to 'land my spaceship). This thread (gut instinct) has about 10,000 X 10,000 X (1.1.1) posts of undiscovered, on topic features that are going to -- over time (you watch) -- come out, and add to this -- most extremely interesting topic, in the strangest of unforseen ways. It's the ring/Ring (why don't you give me a call - Abba - apologies just one stupid joke), with the Hobbit's --TEMPORAL-- facility in a DUAL context - twicely varied (once each for 'real time' - Tolkien-Tolkien - and once each Poster DUAL Time Each-Each and then - something else. Here's the best bit....this one is best discovered by each reader in turn. Because it belongs to everyone. So, I'll PM a trusted poster (cc'ing moderators - to prove the idea is real, and how it looked when it was inspired), soon. But hint: A.... (the first letter of the idea. The rest I'm putting into notes, to handball soon.) I'm assuming also it's okay -- across the Tale of the Years (Ages) (thread coming) to return to 'bump' it, upon inspiration. E.g. new posters arrive: it's not a welcome sticky. It's an ontopic compliant standard. I do this. "Hey, nice to meet you - hava look at >>The Tale of the Years <<.Such a post (anywhere) then points to a particular thread. Or someone else please - set it up? what I want to do, is ***wade*** through (over time) the Forum's extraordinary wealth of prior wisdom to assemble a URL list, with snippets or context thingies etc (it's not a sticky, and it's funner (but strictly on topic and Forum compliant) if it's (not) a sticky. Gives posters ideas about 'on topic synthesis tools as well). There's a second way I do it. A Thread with an OnTopic, URL-list, plus discussion context of --'synthesis concepts-- e.g. in a [PS] Do you like Rings? We have several Meta-Ring themes thread here. Different threadkeepers.So, it's a 'thread about threads' with an Opening Post for Content Standards - but broader than 'one topic at a time'. Please let me know if these initiatives are too pushy. I'm happy to be guided. But, I'm hoping the concepts will add popularity to these most fantastic boards, but we (me and my long-term poster pals, now sadly lost in Time) found that posting rates skyrocketed. And I'm missing Morthorond, and want him back. I hope he returns to this very thread - I need the battering at times. It sets me straight. He's an extraordinarily funny person, and I like him. I like a person, either of if he dislikes or likes me. Having posted over 150,000 geek posts over the last 15 years, I welcome absolutely anything anyone wants to say. I also have a feeling - a really good one: it's instinct Mithidan - that something very fruitful is coming of it. If he wants a public apology, I'm giving it here. If he doesn't want it, I'm not giving it here I really want to see the Canon arm of the Bilbo thread continue. I have developed a growing love of it! And - good god, I think I'm going to take the Tolkien subject next year (just one) at our State's major University - where it has been hosted - for decades.And so... Kind Regards Last edited by Ivriniel; 12-09-2015 at 06:08 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-09-2015, 07:14 AM
|
#141 | |
|
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,036
|
Quote:
Of course later on the Ace Books controversy called for more tinkering in general, but I believe the new version of chapter five was already in place, again at least generally speaking. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-09-2015, 03:00 PM
|
#142 |
|
Wight of the Old Forest
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Unattended on the railway station, in the litter at the dancehall
Posts: 3,329
|
You're right as usual, Galin. Thanks for the correction!
__________________
Und aus dem Erebos kamen viele seelen herauf der abgeschiedenen toten.- Homer, Odyssey, Canto XI |
|
|
|
|
12-10-2015, 09:53 PM
|
#143 | |
|
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 87
|
Quote:
Never again does the mere presence of the Ring incite a Person, in an instance, to kill the Ring's current owner, to get hold of it. None of Frodo's Hobbit friends instantly go berserk to take the Ring away from him. The council of Elrond doesn't end in a blood bath. Faramir is able to deny the power of the Ring with a sense of reason and prudence. The obvious exception is, of course, Boromir. But even in this case it took months and a whole lot of good reason (i.e. Boromir's desire to save Gondor) to get him to the point, where he is willing to take the Ring with force, if necessary. But he didn't just kill him slyly and scooted off. Boromir knew about the power of the Ring and wanted to use it for his own agenda. He conciously decided that this was, given the dire circumstances, the right course of action. Smeagol, on the other hand, didn't knew anything. All he knew was that there was this pretty looking golden Ring, and that this was his birthday. Coming back to the case of Smeagol and Deagol, it seems to me that there are two possibilities: 1. The Ring's power was, at the time of the incident, stronger than it was ever again afterwards. 2. Smeagol's character is distinguishable and profoundly different from that of the whole lot of other people who knew about the Ring and were around to take it. Last edited by Leaf; 12-10-2015 at 10:03 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-11-2015, 08:45 AM
|
#144 | ||
|
Gruesome Spectre
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Heaven's doorstep
Posts: 8,039
|
Quote:
Quote:
It was said of the Nazgûl that they had been conquered by their rings sooner or later, depending on their native willpower and character. The same would be true to a greater extent with the One. Sméagol didn't resist the Ring because he lacked the desire to do so. It called to his lowest, deadliest wants, and he responded. Even had he possessed the awareness of Frodo and Sam of the Ring's potential, I doubt he could have been swayed from using the Ring.
__________________
Music alone proves the existence of God. |
||
|
|
|
|
12-11-2015, 09:47 AM
|
#145 | |
|
Wight of the Old Forest
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Unattended on the railway station, in the litter at the dancehall
Posts: 3,329
|
Let's consider the situation. The Ring had at that time lain on the bottom of the Anduin since Isildur dropped it [insert precise length of time which I can't look up now, being 60 km away from my copy of LotR]. Sméagol and Déagol would be its first chance in many centuries at getting any closer to its maker. Even if it was at an all-time energy low I could imagine it mustering what little power it had in one all-out activity burst, a desperate attempt to get on the finger of a convenient and malleable bearer.
Also, we have a direct contest between two antagonists for possession of the Ring. We shouldn't, in my opinion, look to Boromir or the Council of Elrond for parallels, but consider Frodo's reaction when Bilbo just asks to touch the Ring in Rivendell, or when Sam offers to carry it for him. His first impulse (immediately suppressed and regretted, of course) is to strike, lash out, claim possession. Magnify this impulse enough, and you get Sméagol killing his friend. But Frodo still killed neither Sam nor Bilbo, even though he had carried the Ring for months then, whereas Sméagol had only just seen it for the first time when he killed his friend. I therefore concur with Inzil that Sméagol's character is key. He had a long headstart in his decline into evil even before he took the Ring. If Boromir didn't just backstab Frodo when they quarrelled it was because even then he was a nobler man than Sméagol had ever been. [I must, however, object to this: Quote:
__________________
Und aus dem Erebos kamen viele seelen herauf der abgeschiedenen toten.- Homer, Odyssey, Canto XI |
|
|
|
|
|
12-11-2015, 10:09 AM
|
#146 | ||
|
Gruesome Spectre
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Heaven's doorstep
Posts: 8,039
|
Quote:
Tolkien noted in Letters # 181: Quote:
__________________
Music alone proves the existence of God. |
||
|
|
|
|
12-11-2015, 10:30 AM
|
#147 | ||
|
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 87
|
Quote:
The Frodo/Bilbo incident at Rivendell, on the other hand, is hardly comparable to the Sméagol/Déagol situation, in that sense. It's clearly a situation of rivalry between two long time Ring-bearers where both of them knew about the powers of the Ring. So the question remains, what was it that "magnified this impulse"?! As we all seem to agree, the answer is most likely Sméagol's twisted character. Here's a quote from Gandalf about Gollum: Quote:
Although I find it important to say that this doesn't mean that the opposite constellation would be true: A good character obviously doesn't ensure a carefree contact to the Ring, nor does a good character enable an individual to use the Ring as tool for good means. Last edited by Leaf; 12-11-2015 at 11:07 AM. |
||
|
|
|
|
12-11-2015, 02:06 PM
|
#148 | |
|
Wight of the Old Forest
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Unattended on the railway station, in the litter at the dancehall
Posts: 3,329
|
You're right to disagree with me, Leaf
; in my desire to stress the element of contest I neglected the element of first sight vs having been under the influence of the Ring for months.Inzil, I'm not sure there is such a thing as a person's nature divorced of all environmental influences, but I won't belabour that point. I did, however, look up what Gandalf has to say about Sméagol's character before the finding of the Ring: Quote:
I'm not sure we should keep discussing this here (if at all), because, well, once upon a time this thread used to have a topic, but I think Leaf has hit on a question that is not as easy as it looks.
__________________
Und aus dem Erebos kamen viele seelen herauf der abgeschiedenen toten.- Homer, Odyssey, Canto XI |
|
|
|
|
|
12-12-2015, 12:23 PM
|
#149 | |||
|
Curmudgeonly Wordwraith
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ensconced in curmudgeonly pursuits
Posts: 2,515
|
Quote:
I had stated that I wouldn't post on this thread further, but the following bit of insouciant peregrination into the outlandish misses the 'crux of the biscuit' (if I may quote the learned sage F. Vincent Zappa). I have been annoyed about it the entire time, and only now have found time to rebut it. Quote:
He owned at certain periods the titles of Rawlinson and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon and Merton Professor of English Language and Literature at Oxford. If we were to simply stop there and ignore his life and studies in context, then perhaps there would be a foundation for his being just a wordsmith. Obviously, his first job was on the staff of the Oxford English Dictionary and his superb lexicographic skills were noted by his senior editors. That Tolkien never used a word that wasn't etymologically apt in its placement (for instance, eschewing words of French derivation when dealing with Anglo-Saxon material in his work) cannot be understated...or marveled at for the length and breadth of their consistency -- even in the dogged insistence of editing out words that weren't proper in context or were anachronistic in their placement. However, when one makes the baldly absurd statement that because Tolkien had a professorial title to one thing, it precluded a master's knowledge in another thing, it must be pointed out and given a derisive chortle. I emphasized the statement previously, but let me print it again: He was not a theologian, nor an anthropologist, nor was the professorial title for those. I would suggest, for instance, that Tolkien's expertise and study of theology would embarrass most degreed theologians (as if having the doctorate title makes one eminent). Tolkien is an internationally recognized Christian and Catholic scholar and one of the most profound Christian thinkers of the 20th century. Here is a man with an intimate knowledge of Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy and who could read and interpret it in the original Late Latin (just as he read and interpreted Anglo-Saxon Christian poems and Middle-English Christian allegories in their original tongue - name some theologians who can do that), and who used Boethian concepts in his works (see Shippey for further information), as well as integrating Neoplatonic, Augustinian and, it can be argued, even applying syncretistic concepts like Manicheism and paganistic themes (from Norse and Greek myth and the fatalistic Kalevala) in his philosophical stew (again, a synthesizer of the highest magnitude). This interpolation and synthesis of seemingly contradictory theological precepts was brilliantly illuminated by Tolkien in his landmark lecture "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics" (revered by critics as one of the most important pieces on the poem), wherein he embraced the marriage of Northern pagan virtues and Christian theology in Beowulf as invigorating of spirit, and which acted as a template for his integration of pagan and Christian motifs that built the cosmology and mythos of Middle-earth. And one can easily see Beowulf in the Elves suffering the "long defeat" with stoic bravery against incalculable odds, in that fate and doom play their parts as does the Christian inevitability of mortality as Tolkien states, "the wages of heroism is death". And what did you think the Inklings talked about during their meetings, the score of the latest Lord's Cambridge v. Oxford cricket match? No, here we have a cadre of Christian thinkers unmatched for its time: C.S. Lewis the great Christian apologist (who, of course, was converted by Tolkien himself -- how do you think Tolkien had the ability to turn such a great mind as Lewis, if not for theological acumen?); Owen Barfield the anthroposophist; the theologian and writer Charles Williams; and Adam Fox, Dean of Divinity at Magdalen College, Oxford. Not only did Tolkien fit in here from just a literary standpoint, I would state his theological expertise warranted the inclusion. I would continue, but my daughter reminds me we have Christmas shopping to do. I may or may not follow up. Quote:
__________________
And your little sister's immaculate virginity wings away on the bony shoulders of a young horse named George who stole surreptitiously into her geography revision. Last edited by Morthoron; 12-12-2015 at 12:44 PM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
12-24-2015, 09:42 PM
|
#150 | |
|
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 430
|
Quote:
I'll be back to respond to your -- delicious..gol..ious message. I hope you've been well and merry xmas to you. See you soon. [edit]I'm laughing uncontrollably again - as I read your most excellent materials!!!! Especially the first few sentences[/edit]
__________________
A call to my lost pals. Dine, Orcy_The_Green_Wonder, Droga, Lady Rolindin. Gellion, Thasis, Tenzhi. I was Silmarien Aldalome. Candlekeep. WotC. Can anyone help? Last edited by Ivriniel; 12-24-2015 at 09:46 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-25-2015, 06:32 AM
|
#151 |
|
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 430
|
@Mor_thoron,
I'm not sure that 'insouciant peregrination' of Frank Zappa's needlecraft in migrating Silmarils best captures Tolkien's degree of religious expertise in his impregnations of his mythology with, perturbingly -divisible- spectral ordinations strewn throughout the cosmology. I would rather instead, compare......Buck's Fizz.....to Abba rather than ....Frank Zappa to ......needlecraft of Balrogs. For example, theological or anthropological analysis of the last 2000 years doesn't explain how the Arkenstone became (causation direction deliberate) a Silmaril. As you said Morth, "concision, Ivriniel is not thy name" which of course elicits regular laughter and is becoming a staple in my friendship circles. Everyone who knows me knows I gave all my educators 'headaches' due to breaches of word lengths.... So, I would concede that the professor was etymologically advanced, linguistically gifted, and certainly a wordsmith, and theologically--oriented, and anthropologically - somewhat - oriented. It would be impossible to be otherwise inclined after decades of exposure to the academic environment. Yet, in my lack of concision....and woolly....felicitations? or semi-abstract, denominations, um or erm, what I mean is, florid vocabulary in incisively precise linguistic focus (wait, the sentence is really not making sense )deters us from the fulcrum or reasoned woman's positioning of Tolkien's denominational abstractions. In sum, he was Christian, and wrote with Christian emphases, not really more. There are no real elucidations in his mythology of the diverse spectrum of liturgical positions taken by theologians about religiosity. Nor was there really anything more than mundane meanderings in any spiritual derivations he presented. I saw no exegeses, nor any of the tools of methodological -- precision -- permitted to theologians of advanced academic heritage. Bilbo's Migrating Personality Over the Course of the Hobbit Invisibility in the social contract of the Anglo Saxon social mind is anathema to honesty. Eave's dropping, voyeurism and in our modern world -- spy cams -- undeclared evoke spectREs of serious violation of the social contract and are prosecutable offences. This basic facility of the civilised mind--where affectations of vanity and god complexes are not the guiding premises of interactions--is the grounding of what has and should be the defining feature of any ring or Ring or trinket imbuing invisibility. The perspective-taking task that elicits the -- vanity -- implicit or hidden in the seduction of the reader into accepting the ring as benevolent requires us to simply imagine having a friend who we discovered had 'visited the home' with their ring on, or 'been in the background' whilst having a private conversation, or worse -- stalked -- us unbeknownst to us. I recall at my first read of the Hobbit (Ed, version year 3255, AD, ie the 'one handy', which has a lovely picture on the cover of Tolkien's Esgaroth/Barrels and Bilbo afloat) initially having a raised eyebrow at the stealth, creepily, secrecy of Bilbo and the -- obvious -- extended delay of his confession to his apparent 'close pals' of some months. This serious lapse in morality would not have been lost on the professor, whose life in the University system would have been vexed by 'Romulan' stealth and Tal Shiar Machiavellianism. As a staunch Christian, the notion of an invisible stealthy creature creeping around his Parish would have been of course another serious and obvious moral violation of the then Anglo Saxon social 'contract'. His literary mastery and methodological tools of analysis and an English Professor, no doubt would have been preternatural preoccupations enabling him to fathom conceit, vanity, and deviation of moral fortitude in Bilbo's -- growing -- tendency to -- rationalise, minimise, justify and validate really very dubious moral escapades by the time the Battle of the Five Armies ensued. Here this analytical premise is supported by explicit concepts apparent in the prose. For example, during Bilbo's longest period wearing the ring in Thranduil's halls, the text reads that "for something to do, he took to wandering the Elvenking's palace". I see - 'for something to do', I know, I'll 'put on my ring and head down town to, um, lets see, the Department of Justice, or um, perhaps the presidential suits, and roam around, while the various senators ready themselves for work in the morning, perhaps during their ablutions or vacating bowels, and, I know, 'just listen in' to any of the equivalent to the "Elven King's" counsels, such as a President or Prime Minister's morning chats to his family and romantic partner. Of course, no one will blink an eye when Mr Bilbo Baggins pops off his ring (or Ring) to decry 'good morning, hope this doesn't startle'. By the way, did you hear, Albatross migratory patterns now included provision for heat resistant feathers, which permit subterranean flights through lava conduits! Then there's this "Eventually after a week or two of this sneaking sort of life" and he was "....lurking there...", in his lazily attenuated new life, where "listening to Elven guards" without their knowing, was not a bother to his conscience at all! There goes Mr 'Moral fortitude' traipsing about in Elven Halls, thenCe off he goes, and grabs the Arkenstone (weeks ahead of the presence of the Elves and Bard, and God only knows what other stealthy, disturbingly cunning plots Mr 'Clean living Baggins' was keeping in store! The competing......thesis....(hahahaha, okay, I'm overdoing lack of ......concision, Ivriniel (*points to Morth* hahaha) erm, um, theory, is that the author seduced the reader into minimising the gravity of the impact of the little old, small r, ring upon an owner's moral -- DECAY. It has to be inevitable that invisibility has these impacts. "Bilbo,of course, disapproved of the whole turnoff affairs. He had by now had more than enough of the mountains, and being besieged inside was not at all to his taste" And there you have it. The so called 'bonding of love' of Bilbo in ardour and valour of a year or so, reduced to trite boredom and he was done with the stench of dragon, bored of cram, and little bothered at all to -- hog -- the Arkenstone, rather than feasibly do a manly (Hobbit version) thing and confront openly before the world what his reason, haste, task and mission was, as he then popped on his ring (still this is creepy I read, but a little better). Bottom line. Ungoliant ate the Silmaril morth. As I said, it's hidden in the subext. Beren didn't find it, at all, and there were only two at the end of the First Age hahahaha. Ie. it's a fun - analysis - Devil's advocate, and yet holds some grounds. I could at this point extend the analysis into a precursor for a -- thesis -- likening for example, the features of boredom, lack of bonding, and amorality of sociopathy and its impetus to make people do rather seriously bad behaviour, like 'steal a prised jewel - such as Queen Elizabeth's Sceptre" by stealth, "because Bilbo was bored and over the Dwarves". Ie, Biblo dons his ring (it's almost a Ring by this point) and stalks the British monarch's (liken this to 'Elven King's halls) halls until he gets his moment and then runs off with the crown jewels. How beguiled have you been that this post, several hundred in and these juxtapositions it took to highlight Mr Not-So-Innocent-Baggins growing attachment to stealth by invisibility. At the start of the narrative, to term him a 'Burglar' was antithetical to the reader's ideas about morality, but so numbed are we by the Battle of the Five armies that stealth, stealing, invisible marauding of the Dwarves by the evil Bilbo is not even noticed! I do indeed see the spectRe of sociopathy as a pall falling upon Bilbo's character by the end of the Hobbit.
__________________
A call to my lost pals. Dine, Orcy_The_Green_Wonder, Droga, Lady Rolindin. Gellion, Thasis, Tenzhi. I was Silmarien Aldalome. Candlekeep. WotC. Can anyone help? Last edited by Ivriniel; 12-25-2015 at 07:14 AM. |
|
|
|
|
01-10-2016, 03:12 PM
|
#152 |
|
Laconic Loreman
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 7,521
   |
I don't think Bilbo's motivations to take the Arkenstone and sneak it out to Bard was driven by the Ring. The Ring works by delusions of supreme power, by possessing it and using it. Boromir wants to take the Ring and use it to command armies against Sauron. Sam's temptation is to use it's power against Sauron and grow an extravagant garden in Mordor. Gollum's temptation is to keep it for himself and dine on the finest fish forever. The Ring works by tempting the bearer with a delusion of "claim ownership of me, you can overthrow Sauron and use me to achieve your heart's desires."
Conceptually, the ring in The Hobbit isn't the One Ring in The Lord of the Rings. But even if it was Bilbo's actions to take the Arkenstone were not driven by The Ring. The Ring would not be tempting Bilbo to use the Arkenstone to achieve his desires of reconciliation. It would be tempting Bilbo to use the Ring itself, as the means to achieve his goal. That's how the Ring works to gain a grip on it's bearer. The original topic has certainly been interesting to ponder...and drag this wight out of his barrow . I haven't read The Hobbit in quite awhile, but it seems to me Bilbo felt forced to take drastic and, in the very least questionable, action in an attempt to be a peacemaker. The result doesn't go as Bilbo planned, but the result doesn't change his intentions. Something you can see in Tolkien is good intentions may lead to unintentional consequences, just as evil intentions may lead to an unexpected positive result. Whatever side you come down on, if you think Bilbo's sneaking and concealing the truth was morally questionable/treacherous (or that he had a legal claim and intentions to bring peace), he's later absolved by Gandalf and then by the person he committed the offense against, Thorin. Bilbo is by no means perfect, this reminds me of how he concealed the true story of how he got the Ring for many years. However, Bilbo concealing the full truth is so very minor, it's silly to condemn him, or act as if he's committed some great injustice. When confronted with the fact Bilbo hasn't been completely honest, he comes clean, and that's more telling of Bilbo's character than trying to conceal the truth because he's too embarrassed at the time.
__________________
Fenris Penguin
|
|
|
|
|
01-11-2016, 09:59 PM
|
#153 |
|
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 430
|
I'm not exactly sure we get an exact definition of 'what' the Ring does to character and what character traits are varied. I understood that appeals to domination and control were a part of the transition. I see appeals to greed, themes of seduction, to self-serving behaviour, and also lust of sadism implicit in the transition. I'd add increased tendency for objectification, and for callous lack of empathy. If I had to draw on modern day conceptions, I'd be looking at psychopathy/sociopathy for assistance to clarify how the Ring exerted influence.
The explicit themes in the Hobbit did highlight Bilbo's philanthropic/benevolent motivations (war stopping). There are difficulties with that. There are several tacit themes in the book that don't square with the explicit prose. One is the delay Bilbo had in declaring he had the Arkenstone. A number of weeks prior to the arrival of the Elven armies was involved. His delay at telling his comrades about the Ring a second. His habituation/attenuation to long-term use of the Ring a third (which was amoral. He ceased caring that he was an unwanted spy and became duly self-focussed in his motivations). His delivery of the Arkenstone to Bard and the Elven King was also just weird. The explicit prose states that he had no coveting of the stone and was pleased to be relieved of it. But, the problem with the behaviour was lack of affect and attachment to his Dwarf pals after the betrayal. Having just re-read this part of the book, it sits really strangely with me. There's something missing in the explicit narrative about 'how you'd feel' about being with Bilbo after what we know about him to that point.
__________________
A call to my lost pals. Dine, Orcy_The_Green_Wonder, Droga, Lady Rolindin. Gellion, Thasis, Tenzhi. I was Silmarien Aldalome. Candlekeep. WotC. Can anyone help? |
|
|
|
|
01-12-2016, 10:36 AM
|
#154 | |||
|
Gruesome Spectre
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Heaven's doorstep
Posts: 8,039
|
Quote:
Isildur was a king with the attendant desire for strength to rule his realm and secure it; Gollum wanted to be able to sneak around and spy on others; Bilbo wanted the Ring's invisibility effect to aid him as the 'burglar', though he had also come to enjoy the power itself, feeling pride when it hid him from Smaug, and so forth. The Ring called to the chink in one's armor which was one's greatest want, and it offered the power to effect it. Gandalf said the Ring would weigh on his innate feelings of pity and the desire to do good to corrupt him. Quote:
Also, he may have had some inkling that it would be useful in some way unrelated to him, whether that was a conscious thought or not. Quote:
As for his 'betrayal' of the Dwarves after giving up the stone, he could hardly have stayed with them when Thorin had made it pretty clear he wasn't welcome anymore. Being picked up and threatened with being thrown to one's death wouldn't exactly make one want to stay with the person making the threat.
__________________
Music alone proves the existence of God. |
|||
|
|
|
|
01-12-2016, 04:46 PM
|
#155 |
|
Loremaster of Annúminas
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,330
|
Bilbo sees and is drwn to the Arkenstone just a paragraph after Tolkien describes not only his 'bedazlement' at the hoard, but allure of Dragon-gold; I think he pocketed it primarily because even our stolid Hobbit got a touch of the dragon-sickness, nothing more.
Certainly Tolkien in 1930 or so wasn't thinking of the malign influence of the One Ring!
__________________
The entire plot of The Lord of the Rings could be said to turn on what Sauron didn’t know, and when he didn’t know it. |
|
|
|
|
01-12-2016, 04:50 PM
|
#156 |
|
Loremaster of Annúminas
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,330
|
Bilbo sees and is drwn to the Arkenstone just a paragraph after Tolkien describes not only his 'bedazzlement' at the hoard, but allure of Dragon-gold; I think he pocketed it primarily because even our stolid Hobbit got a touch of the dragon-sickness, nothing more.
Certainly Tolkien in 1930 or so wasn't thinking of the malign influence of the One Ring!
__________________
The entire plot of The Lord of the Rings could be said to turn on what Sauron didn’t know, and when he didn’t know it. |
|
|
|
|
01-13-2016, 08:09 AM
|
#157 |
|
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Lonely Isle
Posts: 706
|
Bilbo, the Ring and the Arkenstone
I've been interested in the recent comments about whether the Ring induced Bilbo to take the Arkenstone and give it to Bard and the Elvenking. I think it quite unlikely; because Gandalf did not mention it in his later conversation with Frodo about the Ring and Bilbo.
When that happened, Gandalf discussed the Ring's influence on Bilbo in terms of the latter not telling the truth about how he got it, i.e. his initial explanation was that Gollum gave it to him due to the former having lost the riddle-game, and him later behaving like Gollum, saying that the ring was his 'precious'. Nowhere did Gandalf refer to Bilbo taking the Arkenstone as an example of the Ring's influence. As I have mentioned before, Bilbo had an arguable case that the stone was the fourteenth share of the hoard he had been promised by Thorin and Company, and that he was entitled to pick and chose his own fourteenth, which he had done, giving the stone to others. 
|
|
|
|
|
01-13-2016, 04:31 PM
|
#158 |
|
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 430
|
Hi Boromirs, Farmir, and Inziladun.
@reader I've been clear to delineate between the explicit prose and the implicit indications in the aspects of text that are discordant. Three factors have been lifted to highlight the problem (the difficulties are not so much with the explicit prose). The factors, instead, of weight to note are: 1. the delay between Bilbo finding the Arkenstone and declaring this to his 'brothers', with several weeks being involved, and prior to the arrival of the Elven King. 2. the delay between Bilbo finding the ring and his uses of it, before his comrades discovered his stealth, secrecy and lurking. 3. the moral decay implied by Bilbo's attenuation to the use of the Ring, and I've cited actual quotes from the book. Several weeks of invisible stealth in the Elven King's halls, and Bilbo's attenuation to this. I liken this to imagining you had the Ring and were skulking around your friends' homes and got caught. I argue that we are seduced by the author into an amoral alliance with Bilbo over the course of the book. I remember at my first reading of the book feeling like needing to wash then erasing this, then resuming the irky feeling at reading LotR (Shadow of the Past). There are other indications of implicit variance (not explicit) from the narrative. Bilbo's reaction (or lack of it) and being governed by boredom in the final hours before leaving the mountain is one. Having re-read how he was received by Bard and the Elven King, recently - there was also something really wrong it. The author, again, seduces us into 'buying' the way the story was presented.
__________________
A call to my lost pals. Dine, Orcy_The_Green_Wonder, Droga, Lady Rolindin. Gellion, Thasis, Tenzhi. I was Silmarien Aldalome. Candlekeep. WotC. Can anyone help? |
|
|
|
|
01-14-2016, 06:39 PM
|
#159 |
|
Loremaster of Annúminas
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,330
|
Ivriniel, your argument might have more force had Tolkien in any way revised that section of The Hobbit during or after the writing of The Lord of the Rings, as he did with Chapter 5, but he didn't. We're supposed to assume, what, that Tolkien unconsciously was writing a description of the Ring's influence on Bilbo years before he "discovered" that the Ring had any influence at all?
__________________
The entire plot of The Lord of the Rings could be said to turn on what Sauron didn’t know, and when he didn’t know it. |
|
|
|
|
01-14-2016, 09:51 PM
|
#160 |
|
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 430
|
I'd rather steer away from 'forcing' the reader and instead enjoy some unorthodox positioning of arguments.
So - the points about dates of authorship are well and truly attended to in materials upstream (I'll re-post the summary URL and highlight the post where I address the idem about dates of authorship. Yes, the dreaded chapter 5 was the revised text, which is the point about back-editing the Hobbit after LotR was begun (but recall, Tolkien also had a first draft of LotR going in the Fellowship for Unwin and Allen to read, that retained the original Hobbit unedited). However, in accordance with what Tolkien actually did to himself with his own works, my arguments do much the same. Why is it allowable for the author to vary interpretation of his very own text (as he certainly did in the prelude of the 19 sixty something edition), and yet others may not. Of course, Tolkien has interpreted the very same text in two streams of meaning, pre and post Hobbit revisions. So - I am not arguing that which has been posited. I have a distinct position. Kind Regards Edit: with regards to my use of the term '...interpreted...' I refer to text outside of chapter IV.
__________________
A call to my lost pals. Dine, Orcy_The_Green_Wonder, Droga, Lady Rolindin. Gellion, Thasis, Tenzhi. I was Silmarien Aldalome. Candlekeep. WotC. Can anyone help? Last edited by Ivriniel; 01-14-2016 at 10:15 PM. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
