Bilbo´s treachery - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

William Cloud Hicklin · 01-14-2016, 06:39 PM

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?

Ivriniel · 01-14-2016, 09:51 PM

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.

01-14-2016, 06:39 PM	#1
William Cloud Hicklin 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	#2
Ivriniel 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.