Bilbo´s treachery

[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.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Ivriniel, I'm not sure where you're getting these ideas, but it's pretty clear that you haven't read HME, or at least the relevant volumes. Zigur is entirely correct- the notion of the Rings of Power hadn't yet been conceived when The Hobbit was written, or even when the earliest chapters of the Lord of the Rings were written-- Tolkien at first had little idea why Bilbo -> Bingo was setting out at all!

As for Sauron: he first appears (originally under the name Thu) in the Lay of Leithian, written in the late 1920s, but only in the context of Beren and Luthien, the "sub-boss" of the story responsible for Barahir's death and who has to be overcome on the Isle of Werewolves. He is there depicted as a master of phantoms, illusions, deceits and shape-shifting.... but nary a ring in sight.

The Hobbit, to the best estimation of John Rateliff (who has studied the manuscripts more extensively than anyone alive) was written between 1929 and 32, probably 1930-31. The old theory printed in Carpenter that the final chapters weren't written down until 1936 is probably erroneous, but even if it were correct it wouldn't change the fact that Tolkien didn't write Word One of LR until after The Hobbit was in print and selling well enough that Unwins wanted a sequel- specifically, 19 December 1937 (with no Ring or Sauron). The idea of Rings of Power didn't crop up until late February or March 1938, in the course of writing the chapter "Three's Company" ("The Shadow of the Past" had yet to be written or conceived)- where Tolkien, on the page, altered a description of Gandalf's arrival on horseback into the first Black Rider and thus found the drive-spring of his heretofore aimless sequel.

In 1931 there were no Ages after the First; in 1936 'The Lost Road' brought about the first version of the Fall of Numenor where indeed Sauron is the villain, but entirely Ring-less; and in The Hobbit and the beginning drafts of the LR there isn't the faintest suggestion that Bilbo's ring has any connection to him

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Ivriniel, I'm not sure where you're getting these ideas, but it's pretty clear that you haven't read HME, or at least the relevant volumes. Zigur is entirely correct- the notion of the Rings of Power hadn't yet been conceived when The Hobbit was written, or even when the earliest chapters of the Lord of the Rings were written-- Tolkien at first had little idea why Bilbo -> Bingo was setting out at all!

As for Sauron: he first appears (originally under the name Thu) in the Lay of Leithian, written in the late 1920s, but only in the context of Beren and Luthien, the "sub-boss" of the story responsible for Barahir's death and who has to be overcome on the Isle of Werewolves. He is there depicted as a master of phantoms, illusions, deceits and shape-shifting.... but nary a ring in sight.

The Hobbit, to the best estimation of John Rateliff (who has studied the manuscripts more extensively than anyone alive) was written between 1929 and 32, probably 1930-31. The old theory printed in Carpenter that the final chapters weren't written down until 1936 is probably erroneous, but even if it were correct it wouldn't change the fact that Tolkien didn't write Word One of LR until after The Hobbit was in print and selling well enough that Unwins wanted a sequel- specifically, 19 December 1937 (with no Ring or Sauron). The idea of Rings of Power didn't crop up until late February or March 1938, in the course of writing the chapter "Three's Company" ("The Shadow of the Past" had yet to be written or conceived)- where Tolkien, on the page, altered a description of Gandalf's arrival on horseback into the first Black Rider and thus found the drive-spring of his heretofore aimless sequel.

In 1931 there were no Ages after the First; in 1936 'The Lost Road' brought about the first version of the Fall of Numenor where indeed Sauron is the villain, but entirely Ring-less; and in The Hobbit and the beginning drafts of the LR there isn't the faintest suggestion that Bilbo's ring has any connection to him

William, ur comment seems to imply that a poster can only comment if they have the authority to. By drawing upon, only, and singularly ideas in tomes you aspire to, value or respect.

I do not have any problem with your referencing or materials. what I do post, however, is what I post.

Please have a look at the materials, and see -- if you like -- what perhaps would help me to steer you in my ideas, by asking a question about a concept, or directing my attention to where it is that you would like it to be.

Thank you and kind regards

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

William, ur comment seems to imply that a poster can only comment if they have the authority to. By drawing upon, only, and singularly ideas in tomes you aspire to, value or respect.

I do not have any problem with your referencing or materials. what I do post, however, is what I post.

Please have a look at the materials, and see -- if you like -- what perhaps would help me to steer you in my ideas, by asking a question about a concept, or directing my attention to where it is that you would like it to be.

Thank you and kind regards

I don't think William implied that only people with authority should comment; however, he is completely correct in what he is saying and offers research to back it up. That is how debates are won.

Simply put, the One Ring of The Lord of the Rings was not originally the ring Bilbo bore in The Hobbit, and the idea by Tolkien to incorporate that plot point into the story came well after the original publication of The Hobbit. Please reread William's post for the particulars.

But one doesn't even need to go to outlandish lengths and provide copious amounts of documentation to know this. All one has to do is read the first edition of The Hobbit to know that, after the riddle game, Gollum simply hands the magic ring to Bilbo as a reward for winning. This, of course, would not be physically possible for Gollum if it were the malignant One Ring he had held for centuries. Tolkien did not change that aspect of the story until he rewrote The Hobbit to align with the plot of Lord of the Rings.

If you have no conclusive citations that state otherwise, the debate is over, nothing more to see here, move on.