Bilbo´s treachery

[Ivriniel]

He was writing on a version on the Hobbit in December 1937. The book involved a series of starts.

The story of the One Ring --was quick -- to emerge. And his Silmarillion stuff was his earlier works, and as I recall, during earlier years after WWI. Ah God, we all know this stuff here, don't we?

The Lord of the Rings, as a title was conceived in Spring of 1938. Not published until later--we all know that--so what.

So, Zigur, what's your point. And also Galadriel, what's yours?

[Galadriel55]

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

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

What does anything have to do with anything, really, except as a discussion point or random expression of curiosity.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

So, Zigur, what's your point. And also Galadriel, what's yours?

My point is that you can't just throw out an idea that's not directly connected to the discussion preceding it without explanation and expect me to immediately agree. An explanation is also a key aspect of discussion, you know.

The only aspect of the Ring I can sense behind Bilbo's decision is invisibility. It's a tool without which it would have been much more difficult for Bilbo to succeed in his plan. Would this plan, or a variation of thereof to account for lack of invisibility, have existed had the Ring not been there? I think so, because that's what Bilbo would do. Did Bilbo have an attachment to the Ring? Perhaps or perhaps not. I really can't see why it matters, and if you think it does, then please explain the merits of your idea that attachment and dependence on the Ring was a main factor in pushing Bilbo to give the Arkenstone to Bard and the Elven King. You're the one who's making the claim; the evidence is first and foremost your responsibility.

And, yes, you need to do some convincing before I will see your side of the issue. I picture Gollum, a character who we all can agree is dependent on the Ring. What would he do in a similar situation? "Friendses, they said. Liars, and cheats! We have done our job, yesss.... They are treacherous, my precious, but we are good. Let those false friendses die in battle, and we will sit snuggly here and get more reward. Yes!" This is one of the several possible scenarios that came to my mind. But one scenario that I don't see happening is Gollum betraying a friend's trust for the benefit of the friend, not for his own gain or Ring-lust.

So please explain why it would matter so much in this situation that Bilbo was already attached to the Ring. Once you establish this connection, we can debate the extent of such attachment.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

PS - I wonder if Annatar had sex with the Noldor in the Ost In Edhil? These themes are never discussed and I often wonder why not. Case in point: Maeglin. It's a bit off topic, but I'm curious to hear your comments about this.

Then make a thread about it. Stop throwing out irrelevant ideas.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

My point is that you can't just throw out an idea that's not directly connected to the discussion preceding it without explanation and expect me to immediately agree. An explanation is also a key aspect of discussion, you know.

My point is, again, what's your point.

The only aspect of the Ring I can sense behind Bilbo's decision is invisibility. It's a tool without which it would have been much more difficult for Bilbo to succeed in his plan. Would this plan, or a variation of thereof to account for lack of invisibility, have existed had the Ring not been there? I think so, because that's what Bilbo would do. Did Bilbo have an attachment to the Ring? Perhaps or perhaps not. I really can't see why it matters, and if you think it does, then please explain the merits of your idea that attachment and dependence on the Ring was a main factor in pushing Bilbo to give the Arkenstone to Bard and the Elven King. You're the one who's making the claim; the evidence is first and foremost your responsibility.

And, yes, you need to do some convincing before I will see your side of the issue. I picture Gollum, a character who we all can agree is dependent on the Ring. What would he do in a similar situation? "Friendses, they said. Liars, and cheats! We have done our job, yesss.... They are treacherous, my precious, but we are good. Let those false friendses die in battle, and we will sit snuggly here and get more reward. Yes!" This is one of the several possible scenarios that came to my mind. But one scenario that I don't see happening is Gollum betraying a friend's trust for the benefit of the friend, not for his own gain or Ring-lust.

So please explain why it would matter so much in this situation that Bilbo was already attached to the Ring. Once you establish this connection, we can debate the extent of such attachment.



Then make a thread about it. Stop throwing out irrelevant ideas.

Its rubbish, don't you think to assert that Bilbo -- didn't -- lie to Gandalf about how he procured the ring? Don't you think, such --rubbish-- coming out of the Hobbit's mouth would mean that it was --rubbish-- to assert that the Ring wasn't doing it's zshoo zshoo hahaha (as in I am literally crying with laughter at this point) by the time Bilbo planted it on his lil-ole Hobbity-finger.

Such assertions, Galadriel in your prose also convey tacitly -- off topic -- descriptors. Don't we all. I've never found a purism in any thread.

A topic on whether or not Annatar was -- hot -- can easily be made part of on topic posting here. I did mention something I'd thought you'd miss. Most do. I used the term, specifically -- death lust -- which, of course? or not of course? is a theme in the Narrative. How is this relevant to ontopic Bilbo treachery. The dire lust of which I speak is tacit in most of Tolkien's psychosexual assumptions as he cast it through the narrative. To add to the death lust theory--Sauron was full of it(angry people are full of it too). No doubt he imbued it in the Ring. The same Ring in the Hobbit, not 'the Ring', but 'the Ring', or even 'the Ring' if you like.

It's a rather interesting topic, of itself. 'Seduction' although he typically stays clear of sexual implications, is not separate or dissociable--entirely--

About lies and Rings - psychosexuality and--lying--in all its forms are conjoined.

So, I look forwards to see where your -- dependencies or attachments -- reside in where you place your particular points to inspire? posters to respond to you.

PS I wonder what kind of regalry and clothing the vanities of Annatar included to entice the Noldor. Celebrimbor, who had such trouble courting -- Galadriel -- seemed rather taken by Annatar.......

*dries eyes after laughing doubled over* - that was a fun post to write, which is what I come to these boards for. Laughter. Certainly not the stupidity of being excessively serious and losing the --fun-- of posting.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

My point is, again, what's your point.

Oh nothing whatsoever. See, I was too busy daydreaming about Annatar's hot looks to actually explain myself on a thread about Bilbo's thoughts and motivations. So terribly sorry to inconvenience you.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Its rubbish, don't you think to assert that Bilbo -- didn't -- lie to Gandalf about how he procured the ring?

Please provide a link to a post in this thread where someone makes the assertion that Bilbo did not lie to Gandalf and the Dwarves about the Ring. A specific quote would be even better. Until you do so, this is a moot argument.

And while you're at it - maybe stop putting words into people's mouths. Your posts repeatedly imply that posters have said or asserted certain things that they clearly did not. It doesn't add to the strength of your arguments.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Don't you think, such --rubbish-- coming out of the Hobbit's mouth would mean that it was --rubbish-- to assert that the Ring wasn't doing it's zshoo zshoo hahaha (as in I am literally crying with laughter at this point) by the time Bilbo planted it on his lil-ole Hobbity-finger.

It's so funny that I can barely contain myself. Because see, the fact that the Ring may have had influence over Bilbo already, doesn't make it the prime motivator in Bilbo's choice to give the Arkenstone away - for no benefit to himself whatsoever, and at great risk to his friendships and even his well-being. And see, stating the same thing over and over again doesn't spark a desire in me to agree with what you're saying. A logical explanation might. In what way exactly did the Ring push Bilbo to give away the Arkenstone? What benefit would that give to the Ring? To Bilbo? What other possible motivations may augment this effect of conflict with it? I will gladly read the elaboration of your point of view if you link your statements with a logical thought progression.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

A topic on whether or not Annatar was -- hot -- can easily be made part of on topic posting here. I did mention something I'd thought you'd miss. Most do. I used the term, specifically -- death lust -- which, of course? or not of course? is a theme in the Narrative. How is this relevant to ontopic Bilbo treachery. The dire lust of which I speak is tacit in most of Tolkien's psychosexual assumptions as he cast it through the narrative. To add to the death lust theory--Sauron was full of it(angry people are full of it too). No doubt he imbued it in the Ring. The same Ring in the Hobbit, not 'the Ring', but 'the Ring', or even 'the Ring' if you like.

It's a rather interesting topic, of itself. 'Seduction' although he typically stays clear of sexual implications, is not separate or dissociable--entirely--

About lies and Rings - psychosexuality and--lying--in all its forms are conjoined.

That is such an interesting topic. So good of you to actually tangentially link it to the context of this thread.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

*dries eyes after laughing doubled over* - that was a fun post to write, which is what I come to these boards for. Laughter. Certainly not the stupidity of being excessively serious and losing the --fun-- of posting.

Well that explains a lot.

[Ivriniel]

Please provide a link to a post in this thread where someone makes the assertion that Bilbo did not lie to Gandalf and the Dwarves about the Ring. A specific quote would be even better. Until you do so, this is a moot argument.

And while you're at it - maybe stop putting words into people's mouths. Your posts repeatedly imply that posters have said or asserted certain things that they clearly did not. It doesn't add to the strength of your arguments.

There's a lot of 'words going into people's mouths' around here. Though, I've never known a--red blooded human being with flesh and bone--to not be likewise inclined. It's just words, Galadriel. That's all they are. Nothing sinister, or anything worthy of narcissistic inflammations. Just words. At my age, words sometimes grow very--wearying--and as my dear cousin said (who I love to bits) "I don't know what the bother is, words are just approximations".

About the 'lying thing'. You remember, don't ya? You know, when Bilbo was rabbiting on about 'finding it' and also avoiding disclosing owning it. There were lies of commission and of omission riddling (pardon the pun) Bilbo's behaviour.....(I'm weary. Must I find exact quotes so you can throw another Molotov Cocktail at your screen) hahaha

Ash Bilbo Durbataluk
Ash Bilbo Gimbatul
Ash Bilbo Thrakataluk
Agh Burzum ishi Krimpatul

hahahahahahahahahahah

You're being cheeky about 'the interesting topic' aren't you. I'm not quite sure how to lead a thread at these boards on psychosexuality - it could get problematic

"Was Annatar or Aragorn Hotter?" hahahahaha

"Did Galadriel's spurning of Celebrimbor stir death lust and make him more amenable to Annatar's clothing and looks?"

hahahahaha

[Ivriniel]

btw - are you one of those people that misuses 'moot' or not? I'm reading ur words with a look of 'hmmm I think she's one of 'those' who do'.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

...the fact that the Ring may have had influence over Bilbo already, doesn't make it the prime motivator in Bilbo's choice to give the Arkenstone away - for no benefit to himself whatsoever, and at great risk to his friendships and even his well-being.

For me, that's a crucial point in an argument against the Ring being a factor in Bilbo's dealings with the Arkenstone.

Doing what he did was really a selfless, dangerous act, and he handed the Arkenstone over to Bard with a "glance of longing", true, but no real problem. Even if he'd wanted the stone for himself, how would that have been to the benefit of the Ring?

I see Bilbo's mild lust for the stone as an artifact of his time with the Dwarves, and his limited contact with Smaug (touch of dragon-sickness, maybe).

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

For me, that's a crucial point in an argument against the Ring being a factor in Bilbo's dealings with the Arkenstone.

Doing what he did was really a selfless, dangerous act, and he handed the Arkenstone over to Bard with a "glance of longing", true, but no real problem. Even if he'd wanted the stone for himself, how would that have been to the benefit of the Ring?

I see Bilbo's mild lust for the stone as an artifact of his time with the Dwarves, and his limited contact with Smaug (touch of dragon-sickness, maybe).

It's a double-true for me to this post. It was paradoxically selfless, and I have to see some of the 'evil-lust' theme in the behaviour too.

In a third 'prong' of argument:

Whilst also sustaining the views upstream about it being dishonest, awkward and violation of fidelity to the Dwarves in the breach of trust sense. Strangely selfless to damage trust, is the new perspective emerging as I read on. Interesting comment Inziladun

[Ivriniel]

@Zigur

I requested stuff, not stuff that reifies what you already wrote, but stuff this way:

....I'd like to see you ground your point in some materials, please, especially since you asserted that The Ring doesn't act immediately, and that The Ring was not part of Prof's thinking/notes at Hobbit time.

You asserted that Rings were Un-ringy in the Hobbit and that Unringy Rings were not really Rings--as in LotR Rings, even though Tolkien was writing about LotRINGS as a title pretty much as the Hobbit was hitting the shelves. (I haven't yet reached the max-level of chaos in responding that usually has Ungoliant in my method. If you see Ungoliant appearing it'll be because the concession about what was explicitly stated in the Hobbit is not embedded in a response.

Informed consent. Ungoliants come out when I get hysterical and laugh lot

Add in it's hard to keep an un-Ringy argument about The Hobbit-Rings when we factor in Silmarillion notes from 1927. Sauron, "hot bad boi" was around in Tolkien's 'lust, greed, seductions, Rings of Fire' (durbataluk) in Morgothian-offshoots for quite some time.