Concering Bilbo Bagginses...

can somebody tell me why Bilbo changed the story of how he got the ring from Gollum ??? Like Frodo I didnt see the point why.

[Birdland]

This little part of the book confused me, also, when I stopped to think of it. Despite the explanation Gandalf gives that Bilbo didn't want to be thought of as a thief.

It's my understanding that later editions of the Hobbit were revised, so that the finding of the Ring would reflect the later events occurring in LoTR. I've never read an editon of the Hobbit published before the 1970s, so I have no comparison. But I suspected that the discussion of the "changing ring story" is in reference to passages in the Hobbit that have since been changed! [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]

Are there any Tolkien collectors out there who have 1930s copies of The Hobbit, who can tell us if these early editions have a different version of the events then the later editions?

[lathspell]

I don't think the new editions of The Hobbit are revised. But maybe someone with an old edition of the book can help us out in this one.
In my opinion Gandalf clearly points out why Bilbo gives another account than the true story. When he tells Bilbo about the story of the Ring, and the making of the Rings of Power, he tells Bilbo this:

... Then I heard Bilbo's strange story of how he had "won" it, and I could not believe it. When I at last got the truth out of him, I saw at once that he had been trying to put his claim on the ring beyond doubt. Much like Gollum with his "birthday present". The lies were too much alike for my comfort. Clearly the ring had an unwholesome power that set to work on its keeper at once...

This little part of that tale makes quiet clear that it wasn't Bilbo changing the story because HE wanted too, but because the Ring made him change the story. I think Gandalf is right in the last part too (about the Ring having an unwholesome power that set to work inmediately), because Bilbo didn't tell Gollum either. Why wouldn't he? He didn't know that the Ring belonged to Gollum before he found it. And it took a long before he guessed that it might have been so, only after Gollum begins to whisper to himself.
I guess it's the same "power" that makes Bilbo change the story, as maked Smeagol kill Deagol. Afterwards the birthday present-story was easy to make up for it was his birthday, but this also he made up under the domination of the Ring.

So, in short, Bilbo had nothing (or a little) left of his own free will in the matter concerning the Ring. The Ring had the greater power as he had with all its bearers except Sauron himself.

[Child of the 7th Age]

I don't have a 1930s Hobbit--that would be really rare. But I do have The Annotated Hobbit which was published in the 1980s and this contains both the old and new versions of the story. Also, there is a book called A Tolkien Compass edited by Jared Lobdell and this has an essay called "Gollum's Character Transformation in the Hobbit" by Bonnie Jean Christensen. I can't put my fingers on the Annotated Hobbit right now because it's in the back of the house and my entire family is sleeping, and they will kill me if I wake them! But I do have that essay here. This is what Christensen says (paraphrasing)--In the first edition of the Hobbit, Gollum is a "lost soul" who would kill but who would not violate his oath. He freely offers a ring as a prize to Bilbo in a riddle contest. When he loses and is unable to produce the ring, he courteously shows Bilbo the way out of the mountain. By the second hardback edition, Gollum is a withered, totally depraved creature dominated by an evil ring and capable of any crime. In the 1966 edition, there are even a few more changes to stress Gollum's depravity.

Most of the changes between the early ad later editions come in the second half of the chapter. It doubles in length. The first change in the chapter involves the prize--the newer version substitutes help in finding a way out in place of the original present of a ring. The essay gives a line-by-line comparison between the original edition and the later one. The later edition describes the ring as a "ring of power" which the early edition does not; they just say it's a magical ring. In the first edition, Gollum is much nicer. He goes to look for the ring in his treasure trove and when he can't find it (because it's in Bilbo's pocket!), Gollum even offers "to catch Bilbo some nice juicy fish to eat as consolation."

In the first edition, there is no scene where Bilbo stands next to Gollum and is invisible because he has the ring on, and then feels pity so doesn't kill him. This was added for the later editions so it will tie into the whole theme of pity and mercy in the LOTR. Also the first edition doesn't have the scene where the angry Gollum chases Bilbo down the passage shrieking his anger at him; this is only in the revised edition and again ties into the themes of the LOTR when Gollum chases Frodo and Sam wanting his ring back.

The essay doesn't say anything about Bilbo's explanation to Gandalf about how he got the ring. If I have time, I'll check the Annotated Hobbit tomorrow and see if there's anything else. Oh yes, I think they are revising and reprinting the Annotated Hobbit later ths year. I saw something on amazon.com. It is a really nice book, much large than the usual Hobbit and with many pictures and explanations in the margin.

I'm not sure if this really answers your question, but it does show how major the changes were between the two editions. And all of it was done to tie Gollum, the ring, and the theme of pity into Tolkien's "new" book, the LotR.

[ElanorGamgee]

Wow, that is really interesting! Thank you, Sharon! I had been wondering about the "revised edition" mentioned at the beginning of The Hobbit.

[Birdland]

Thanks, C.o'7.A! I knew that Tolkien had "updated" the Hobbit, but had no idea that he had changed so much!

I'm going to have to pick up a copy of the Annotated Hobbit. (I love annotated novels!)

I can't think of another author who has gone back and changed major parts of a story like that. Just shows the respect (or fear?) that the publishers must have held for Mr. Tolkien, that they would allow him to do that.

Or perhaps no other author has cared enough about his characters that he would want to go back and "correct" an earlier work so it would mesh with a later story?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Birdland--

I can't think of another author who's one back and changed major parts of a story like that."

Neither can I. But I'm no expert here. Maybe someone else has heard of an example like this. What does strike me though, is how "compulsive" Tolkien was about going back to his earlier works, changing his mind about things, and making revisions.

I'm reading the volumes of the History of Middle-earth now, and it seems like one reason he never published the Silmarillion during his life was that he felt he had to make revision after revision. At one point, for example, he was going to edit out the "flat" earth he had created at the beginning of Middle-earth in order to shift to a sphere which would be in accord with scientific theory. I'm glad he didn't do it. (I don't mind the later reshaping of the world in the story itself, but I wouldn't want to start out like that.)

[Mithadan]

Not only was "Riddles in the Dark" changed, but also pieces of Bilbo's story of how he found the Ring as it was told to the Dwarves. The edits took place in the Fifth Printing of the British Printing of the First Edition in 1954. However, for some reason, the British publishers continued to call the Hobbit a First Edition until around 1966, while the first US edition with the changes was called a Second Edition if I recall. I do have a copy of the British First Edition, Fourth Printing which contains the original version. It was printed in 1948.

[Nar]

An example of an author who rewrote a published work: Samuel Richardson and his book Clarissa, one of the earliest novels in the english language. I read all eight volumes of it for an undergraduate english paper. Richardson was a publisher, so he had total freedom. He was worried that his readers didn't find his villain villainous enough, so he included footnotes and summaries, all pointing out how rotten the villain was and how nice the heroine was. This had a very weird effect on the story, encasing it, kind of like Snow White's glass coffin. I much prefer Tolkien's one-chapter rewrite in The Hobbit. There actually is a LotR connection: A few years ago this book was done as a series on TV starring Sean Bean as the wicked aristocrat.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Nar -- Thanks for the information. I had never heard that before. sharon, the 7th age hobbit

Mithadan -- You lucky fellow! A first edition Hobbit....