Bilbo´s treachery

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Listen, you've made ur point, so let's move on. Personalised language is == boring -- 'jibberish see, jibberish do, we jibberish - oo oo oo'.

Thanx for ur ...... post - We're getting closer to Ungoliant

Where exactly are you moving on to?

As far as your odd mention of "getting closer to Ungoliant" (a mantra repeated over and over in this thread), it seems like some sort of veiled threat. Have at it. I am unconcerned.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Where exactly are you moving on to?

As far as your odd mention of "getting closer to Ungoliant" repeated over and over in this thread like some mantra, it seems like some sort of veiled threat. Have at it. I am unconcerned.

last say it-is morthagon. let's just move on and have fun. I'm not really very interested in furthering points made on the thread. It's all been said before. It's all been covered. It's very human to think 'I'm right' and it's all very tiring.

I'd rather have some fun and make a lighter conversation on topics.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

I'd rather have some fun and make a lighter conversation on topics.

May I suggest the Middle Earth Mirth forum?

[Pitchwife]

I'm feeling a little contrary today, so I'd like to stir the pot of this thread once more and argue that the fact that Tolkien didn't, at the time of writing The Hobbit, intend the ring to have an evil influence on Bilbo, though undeniably true, is neither here nor there.

Why? Because the change in role and importance the ring underwent between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, becoming The One Ring, is retroactive within the fictional universe. Once the ring 'turned out' to be the One Ring it always was the One Ring, and the story in the First Edition where Gollum was ready to give Bilbo the ring willingly becomes a figment of Bilbo's desire to make himself look better and affirm his right to the ring.

It's therefore perfectly legit in my opinion to speculate about the Ring influencing Bilbo's taking the Arkenstone, and even more his failure to report his find to the Dwarves - though definitely not the use he made of it, where his better hobbit nature came through. I mean, I totally could see Frodo wondering about that, re-reading Bilbo's book after his return from Mordor. Whatever the Ring's part in the affair, it's influence on Bilbo would still have been very subtle and tenuous at the time, which may be why Tolkien felt no need to elaborate on it in his revisions.

Once again, it's clear and has been amply demonstrated that this isn't what Tolkien intended at the time of writing TH. Whether this is a problem depends on whether you hold auctorial intention to be more important than a text's power to acquire and generate new meanings through its history.

[Ivriniel]

@MothAgon-or-on-ronroon

Except, when it's friendly, it's fun again, so there's more to say Nothing I'm adding is 'new', but I do like saying hello and chit chat, when it's time to.

@Pitchwife

Hello Pitchwife good to see you. Interesting comments, and enjoyable reading. I hope you've been well. I appreciate your position and it's always fun to hear your thoughts.

The text is quite distinct, isn't it, in its 'tonal' emphasis and there was a startling 'jump' in 'tempo' of the darker themes attributable to the Ring in the LotR. I've, many times, reread the books to see what 'hints' Tolkien had in the Hobbit about the Ring's malevolence. I've found some. They're upstream, although, of themselves they are not really conclusive one way or the other (about the topic here, ie 'how much did the Ring evolve from its The Hobbit-ish starting point'). For example, was it significant or not how Gandalf ticked off or studied Bilbo closely about indications of lies of omission/commission in Bilbo's demeanour? (I can find the exact quote if it's needed. I'm guessing most of us already know it?)

And, the whole notion of invisibility, in some ways, did leave a sense of 'wrong' (as The Land kind of 'wrongness') in a very lasting impression in me that is. That sense of 'not quite right to wander about invisibly, without ur pals knowing', that has not really left me in three decades. What do you think, though?

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Hello Pitchwife good to see you.

Hi, Ivriniel! A fine mess you've made of this thread, if I may say so; but I think we've cleared it up by now. At the very least your ideas have the merit of being fresh and unorthodox.

Unlikemost readers, I first read The Hobbit after The Lord of the Rings, so it would be natural for my perception to be somewhat coloured by the later book. Still I didn't find much of LotR's darker tones and themes in it, except in the character of Gollum (who was already poor Sméagol to me) and in the Battle of Five Armies which echoed (or rather foreshadowed) the great battles of Helm's Deep and the Pelennor.

The invisibility thing in itself didn't strike me as particularly wrong - it's a common fairytale trope, and the scenes in which Bilbo uses the ring are IMO written totally different from those where Frodo uses it in LotR, a lot lighter and largely devoid of the ominous overtones we find there. We don't get that sense of him passing into another world or dimension.

What did strike me as wrong in a Gollumish sense was Bilbo's secrecy about the ring, never mentioning it to his friends until he's practically forced to. And this is, of course, where Gandalf's sideway glance comes into play, which you've been mentioning:

Originally Posted by The Hobbit Ch. 6, Out of the Frying Pan Into the Fire

The dwarves looked at him with quite a new respect, when he talked about dodging guards, jumping over Gollum, and squeezing through, as if it was not very difficult or very alarming.
'What did I tell you?' said Gandalf laughing. 'Mr. Baggins has more about him than you guess.' He gave Bilbo a queer look from under his bushy eyebrows, as he said this, and the hobbit wondered if he guessed at the part of his tale that he had left out.

OIbviously Gandalf guessed that Bilbo hadn't performed all these feats unaided but was hiding something; and he may have pondered that such secrecy wasn't quite in character for the hobbit. Looking back from LotR, it may have been here that Gandalf first got an inkling that all wasn't right with Bilbo after his encounter with Gollum.

On the other hand, it's hardly reprehensible that Bilbo wanted to make himself look daring and dashing in the eyes of the Dwarves after having been belittled and denigrated by them for most of the journey so far, and the Ring, we could say, used and maybe amplified this innocent desire in its own desire to remain hidden from such as Gandalf. But we have to consider that Bilbo only used the Ring for the benefit of his companions, much unlike Gollum, who had a long headstart on his path into evil even when he first found it.

(By the way, since you speak of a "The Land kind of wrongness", I wonder: did you in your reading history come from Tolkien to Donaldson or vice versa? You sometimes seem to see Tolkien's characters through a Donaldsonian lens which, in my opinion, tends to distort them, amplifying darkness and wrongness at the expense of other aspects. Same in your Frodo thread.)

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I think that the main act of Bilbo's "treachery" was not taking of the Arkenstone or keeping it secret from the Dwarves. The betrayal of trust really came in when Bilbo gave the stone away to an outsider - moreover, on outsider on the opposite side of the friendship line. And Bilbo knew that no amount of legal twists and loops can justify the dishonesty of his act at this point. And yet this act - the biggest breaking of trust - was quite clearly not something the Ring would have had a hand in.

Right. His greatest betrayal was also his most unselfish and, in its outcome, an act of great goodness and wisdom. Totally un-Ringy.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

it is possible that the Ring took Bilbo's own curiosity and adventurousness and a touch of greed and pulled them in just the right direction. However, I still would not agree to a "the Ring made me do it!" argument. I think all the major components were already present in Bilbo, and if the Ring had any influence at all, it was more to give him a push in the right direction

No, the Ring didn't make him do it, it may just have added a pinch of "Ooh, shiny! We wants it!" to what was already there. If there were no chinks in our characters to begin with, the Ring would have nothing to work with. But you're right, he would have taken it anyway - the text even says so, now I reread it:

Originally Posted by The Hobbit Ch.3, Not at Home

Suddenly Bilbo's arm went towards it drawn by its enchantment.

My emphasis: its enchantment, i.e. the Arkenstone's own. No need for the Ring. So much for thinking I had a case.

As for telling or not telling the Dwarves, I think if he had presented to Thorin "The Arkenstone, discovered for you by your faithful servant Bilbo Baggins, esq., master burglar" they might have carried him around on their hands - or not. You make some very cogent points about their mental state at the time. In any case the need for a grain of salt when making retrospective interpretations has just been demonstrated.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

So what does Tolkien do after publishing The Hobbit? In writing a sequel, he magnifies the tale of Bilbo Baggins and the other characters.

Exactly. Looking back from LotR, The Hobbit isn't so much a prequel as a miniature model, like a rehearsal acted out in a sandbox of much smaller scale and with much smaller stakes.

[Ivriniel]

(By the way, since you speak of a "The Land kind of wrongness", I wonder: did you in your reading history come from Tolkien to Donaldson or vice versa?

I read Donaldsonian stuff second. (I thought Lord Foul was 'hotter' than Sauron - hahahaha' at least the former had a corporeal body, or could choose one. And Sauron's 'hot burning eye' hahahaha although literally perhaps 'hot' wasn't very 'hot' hahahaha)[/quote]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Hi, Ivriniel! A fine mess you've made of this thread, if I may say so; but I think we've cleared it up by now. At the very least your ideas have the merit of being fresh and unorthodox.

Hi Pitchwife. Unorthodoxy was not at all in any part intended,, but I think ur referring to the Ungoliant/Shelob diversion prose? Still, that's posting. Anonymised text seems to enable lower manners thresholds, I've found over time and I try to make light when it gets so serious it's just not fun anymore.

The invisibility thing in itself didn't strike me as particularly wrong - it's a common fairytale trope, and the scenes in which Bilbo uses the ring are IMO written totally different from those where Frodo uses it in LotR, a lot lighter and largely devoid of the ominous overtones we find there. We don't get that sense of him passing into another world or dimension.

Yes, invisibility is common in fairytales though it's in horror stories a lot as well. I was always intrigued, while some part of me baulked at the Ring's invisibility with Bilbo. Even at 15 years of age, which a very long time ago for now, I remember imagining a friend stalking around invisibly (by perspective taking and imagination) and then trying the idea out myself, and then being troubled by the Ring's power.....

What did strike me as wrong in a Gollumish sense was Bilbo's secrecy about the ring, never mentioning it to his friends until he's practically forced to. And this is, of course, where Gandalf's sideway glance comes into play, which you've been mentioning:

I think so - I also seem to recall words of sorts, and I should probably find the citation. From the LotR perspective, Gandalf was versed in Ring Lore, and so the seeing of - even a Lesser Ring - would have opened Gandalf's eye for history up to the Second Age and the Istari's subsequent arrival later on.

But if you presuppose the Hobbit-ish view (the prof hadn't a cogent narrative for the Ring yet), the prior argument isn't as clear.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

The invisibility thing in itself didn't strike me as particularly wrong - it's a common fairytale trope, and the scenes in which Bilbo uses the ring are IMO written totally different from those where Frodo uses it in LotR, a lot lighter and largely devoid of the ominous overtones we find there. We don't get that sense of him passing into another world or dimension.

What did strike me as wrong in a Gollumish sense was Bilbo's secrecy about the ring, never mentioning it to his friends until he's practically forced to. And this is, of course, where Gandalf's sideway glance comes into play, which you've been mentioning...

OIbviously Gandalf guessed that Bilbo hadn't performed all these feats unaided but was hiding something; and he may have pondered that such secrecy wasn't quite in character for the hobbit. Looking back from LotR, it may have been here that Gandalf first got an inkling that all wasn't right with Bilbo after his encounter with Gollum.

On the other hand, it's hardly reprehensible that Bilbo wanted to make himself look daring and dashing in the eyes of the Dwarves after having been belittled and denigrated by them for most of the journey so far, and the Ring, we could say, used and maybe amplified this innocent desire in its own desire to remain hidden from such as Gandalf. But we have to consider that Bilbo only used the Ring for the benefit of his companions, much unlike Gollum, who had a long headstart on his path into evil even when he first found it.

Now that we (every poster in this thread minus one poor sod) have reached consensus establishing that Bilbo's magic ring in the first edition of The Hobbit was not the One Ring of Lord of the Rings, the thought I had was -- why would anyone need to assign outside sources to Bilbo's behavior in The Hobbit, or, at least, The Hobbit before it was revised?

Bilbo Baggins was from the outset not a sterling and spotless individual. He was house-proud, rather haughty of his comfortable station and could be very rude in a Hobbitish manner. That he could be pompous, secretive, covetous and dissembling is not out of the realm of Hobbit character; in fact, there are many other instances of Hobbits behaving badly I'm sure we all can recall.

But he did manage, through adversity and his own reluctance, to do the right thing more often than not, and to do the right thing even when his inner stodgy-Baggins was arguing against his actions.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

....Why? Because the change in role and importance the ring underwent between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, becoming The One Ring, is retroactive within the fictional universe. Once the ring 'turned out' to be the One Ring it always was the One Ring, and the story in the First Edition where Gollum was ready to give Bilbo the ring willingly becomes a figment of Bilbo's desire to make himself look better and affirm his right to the ring....

Once again, it's clear and has been amply demonstrated that this isn't what Tolkien intended at the time of writing TH. Whether this is a problem depends on whether you hold auctorial intention to be more important than a text's power to acquire and generate new meanings through its history.

You have hit on what made Tolkien the writer he was. Tolkien was the one of the greatest synthesizers the literary world has ever known. He wrote The Hobbit showing an inkling of distant previous eras, and these eras were already well-developed in his 1st Age tales and lays which would eventually be made into The Silmarillion. The antecedent Silmarillion works synthesized Biblical, Welsh, Greek and Finnish works or languages, just as The Hobbit borrowed from Beowulf and the Voluspa.

So what does Tolkien do after publishing The Hobbit? In writing a sequel, he magnifies the tale of Bilbo Baggins and the other characters. Gandalf goes from pitching pinecones to defeating a Balrog. Cozy Erebor becomes the decrepit but magnificent Khazad-dum. The dispossessed Bard with the black arrow becomes the dispossessed Aragorn with shards and a lineage that predates the Age. Oh, and a magic ring that grants invisibility becomes the One Ring, the manifestation of all evil, created by an eternal foe, Sauron, who was borrowed from the 1st Age, but now was hiding out as a necromancer in Dol Guldur but really has a far greater keep in Mordor. And Gollum become more than just a riddle-spouting side-character, but one of the prime movers of the new book, held in thrall by the Ring, he destroys it and it destroys him.

Tolkien's genius is borrowing and embellishing, In Lord of the Rings he was masterful with the synthesis and the imagination to connect the dots.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

You have hit on what made Tolkien the writer he was. Tolkien was the one of the greatest synthesizers the literary world has ever known. He wrote The Hobbit showing an inkling of distant previous eras, and these eras were already well-developed in his 1st Age tales and lays which would eventually be made into The Silmarillion. The antecedent Silmarillion works synthesized Biblical, Welsh, Greek and Finnish works or languages, just as The Hobbit borrowed from Beowulf and the Voluspa.

So what does Tolkien do after publishing The Hobbit? In writing a sequel, he magnifies the tale of Bilbo Baggins and the other characters. Gandalf goes from pitching pinecones to defeating a Balrog. Cozy Erebor becomes the decrepit but magnificent Khazad-dum. The dispossessed Bard with the black arrow becomes the dispossessed Aragorn with shards and a lineage that predates the Age. Oh, and a magic ring that grants invisibility becomes the One Ring, the manifestation of all evil, created by an eternal foe, Sauron, who was borrowed from the 1st Age, but now was hiding out as a necromancer in Dol Guldur but really has a far greater keep in Mordor. And Gollum become more than just a riddle-spouting side-character, but one of the prime movers of the new book, held in thrall by the Ring, he destroys it and it destroys him.

Tolkien's genius is borrowing and embellishing, In Lord of the Rings he was masterful with the synthesis and the imagination to connect the dots.

This is inaccurate actually.

I will find the supporting materials that direct us to attend to what was a multi-decade literary works, with antecedent (I used to pronounce it wrong, but as my second PhD supervisor and who pointed out, in delight, said to me "you can't say it that way, Stavros, in front of a crowd". Of course, I giggled, because having a sense of humour at 49 helps) notes about The First Age written as early as 1927, I think. I seem to recall (and it has been a long time since I reviewed my records, so forgive me for being diffuse about dates, but I shall find the materials in my library) that Post WWI the Prof began his literary 'synthesis'* in notes.

The materials about the greater literary foundation, mythology, narrative context, and ***Lore*** (have I missed something) were rejected by Allen and Unwin, and he was pressed to write the more palatable variation of his works for a 'one book to hit the shelves' item - the Hobbit. Given such as large well of Lore in the notes, I find it difficult to conclude that the 'dumbed down' Lore in The Hobbit was not 'dumbed down' a-purpose, in order to satisfy publicists. As we all know, editors and publicists are very often guilty of excisions, directives, and pushes upon authors to distort literary purpose.

As was pointed out to me on this thread, it seems LotR was about one year (in formation of title and narrative) behind the ***publication*** of the Hobbit.

I wonder what that means, given my comments here in this post.

[edit]*I do not refer to the works as a synthesis, per se. The term, although adaptable as you've used it, I divert from. Because, (and I know you can't start a sentence with 'because' ordinarily, I'm relaxing language boundaries, for having written 20,000 words a week for the last 20 years, and so, I like mangling language up a bit) synthesis as you've used the term, implies -- perhaps -- conscious attendance to the theological, anthropological and other aspects of our modern world.

He was not a theologian, nor an anthropologist, nor was the professorial title for those.

He was a linguist or English master or etymologist, primarily. As such, if there is a 'synthesis', I would suggest it was 'implicit' or not-grounded in the level of mastery of vocabulary attendant to Professorial status for anthropology, and theology. He fervently denies allegorical reference in his works, as I'm hoping everyone knows. This supposition has been hotly debated, over the decades. It so then seems to me that aggrandising a Loremaster such as the prof on terms applied, Morthoron, {although he was Christian and did, indeed, 'synthesise' tacitly from theology} is a beguiling argumentative style, adapting vocabulary for its own sake and extending boundaries of inference past a reasonable point.

This is only counter argumentation. And I really don't do it so much like this on these Boards.

I prefer Ungoliantisations, Un-Undoings, Re-Unfriendings, And Unlighterisations. They're more fun, really.[/quote]

[Ivriniel]

@Morthoron

Synthesis of the last post:

1.It's a 'editorial mangling mythological purpose' argument. Just in case the 'nub' of the argument is lost, or distorted, or struck by personalised commentary, which distracts other readers from the 'point' of a 'point'. Have I made my 'point'?
2. Rather than your use of 'magnifying' I replace the term with 'restores'. He -- restored -- narrative Lore, mythology, and original purpose after The Hobbit, and after having his ideas were -- butchered -- by Editors in their original criticisms of his FA mythologies. Those FA mythologies were, in many (not all) ways already in place prior to writing of The Hobbit.

I see then, the major means for 'picking holes' would really required knowing what it was that Allen and Unwin originally 'saw' and 'picked holes in' and then also, what major artefacts of Lore (e.g. Dragons, Rings) would have narrative - thematic level only (i.e. not detailed, just the major themes of mythology) - consistency in FA materials.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

This is inaccurate actually.

No, it is quite accurate, actually.

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.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

*I do not refer to the works as a synthesis, per se. The term, although adaptable as you've used it, I divert from. Because, (and I know you can't start a sentence with 'because' ordinarily, I'm relaxing language boundaries, for having written 20,000 words a week for the last 20 years, and so, I like mangling language up a bit) synthesis as you've used the term, implies -- perhaps -- conscious attendance to the theological, anthropological and other aspects of our modern world.

He was not a theologian, nor an anthropologist, nor was the professorial title for those.

He was a linguist or English master or etymologist, primarily. As such, if there is a 'synthesis', I would suggest it was 'implicit' or not-grounded in the level of mastery of vocabulary attendant to Professorial status for anthropology, and theology. He fervently denies allegorical reference in his works, as I'm hoping everyone knows. This supposition has been hotly debated, over the decades. It so then seems to me that aggrandising a Loremaster such as the prof on terms applied, Morthoron, {although he was Christian and did, indeed, 'synthesise' tacitly from theology} is a beguiling argumentative style, adapting vocabulary for its own sake and extending boundaries of inference past a reasonable point.

I flatly reject your assertion that Tolkien should be limited to being simply a tinker of words, merely a linguist without the philological and philosophical underpinnings to create a theological and anthropological matrix in his subcreative world (or better, a synthesis).

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.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

*u spelt spectER wrong, wait, so did I

No, I did not. As an American, the spelling is indeed s-p-e-c-t-e-r. The British spelling is spectre. I also do not spell theater as t-h-e-a-t-r-e, or aluminum as a-l-u-m-i-n-i-u-m.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

It's therefore perfectly legit in my opinion to speculate about the Ring influencing Bilbo's taking the Arkenstone, and even more his failure to report his find to the Dwarves - though definitely not the use he made of it, where his better hobbit nature came through.

Right, which brings me back to my initial point before the thread got sidetracked. I think that the main act of Bilbo's "treachery" was not taking of the Arkenstone or keeping it secret from the Dwarves. The betrayal of trust really came in when Bilbo gave the stone away to an outsider - moreover, on outsider on the opposite side of the friendship line. And Bilbo knew that no amount of legal twists and loops can justify the dishonesty of his act at this point. And yet this act - the biggest breaking of trust - was quite clearly not something the Ring would have had a hand in.

The way you present your argument does make sense, though - it is possible that the Ring took Bilbo's own curiosity and adventurousness and a touch of greed and pulled them in just the right direction. However, I still would not agree to a "the Ring made me do it!" argument. I think all the major components were already present in Bilbo, and if the Ring had any influence at all, it was more to give him a push in the right direction.

As for telling about the Arkenstone to the Dwarves - I think that was a wise move more than anything. Given how well Bilbo knows them by now, and how riled up and unnecessarily demanding - even offensive - they can get, I don't think he would have told them about the Arkenstone even if he hadn't taken it. And if I had the stone, last thing I would do is give it to them in that state. We see Bilbo's conscience winning over his initial impulsive greed and secrecy, but he really has no way to make it right; I feel like even if he would accept the consequences of the Dwarves' wrath at himself (which he did in the end), he would also at this point foresee that their emotions sometimes take them places, and unrelated things become affected. Their reasoning isn't always fair and their decisions would be dangerous to themselves and to the people lining up at the base of the Mountain as well.

It's true I'm not a fan of arguments by timeline, but it's also true that we have to accept some inconsistency between The Hobbit and LOTR for that reason. That doesn't mean we can't bring in elements of one book into the other, as you say, but just means that we have to do so with an additional grain of salt and not with utmost conviction of their validity.