Bilbo´s treachery

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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.

I'm starting here. A prefix post.

[spoof]This 'poor sod', is so very 'sodden' about the 'sod' who would need to use the word 'sod' to make a rather 'sodden story' about

misprocessing posts.

Of course, that was exactly ShelGoliant's vomit, Unlighted, friendliness. It's so very Morgothian-isatation and welcome-Un-warmingly, a bit like, "I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve". Thank for your - cause - to have me - smiling - again as I post, and read as I write. The -- need -- to personalise -- by -- group alliancing -- is of course, a bit like primate politics. Wait I'm a primate, I'm referring, or um, refereeing to myself, or. errrm, uuuum, just enjoying making myself --laugh--Who has a sense of humour, would I suppose as well, unless, Morgaron, it's going to be the --idiot-- who would --seriously??? take it so --seriously--that there is -- a seriously, serious ---need --- to um, UnAttack hahahah poster.

Lighten up - is it 'wench''missus''mister'sir, Sirius or Ungoliant....And seriously: (next post) serious means 'topical materials for context of the [/spoof]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH MY GOD, I have a HEADACHE hahaha, I've been researching, Morathon, and have actually, been idiotically dumb enough to actually really find -- a whole day-- to research a response

I have a headache hahaha, but "I did it just for you" hahahaha (as in, I really am laughing--at ? myself? I hope so? Because you/re not actually 'ere.

It's just text, my 'dear' um, (oh I don't want to be patronising), um what word is best, erm, 'kind morothon?" um -erm I just don't quite know how to 'thank you' for all your lovely words of welcome. So, I've entertained myself. Stopped caring. Researched it. And I'm going to write some of the finding up.

*coughs* ahhh, there's some 'each way' (ie it's not at all as you've surmised,yet not entirely is wise, to downgrade ur wisdom, moragon, entirely.

Similarly, as I've always said about textual-posting modes, context of authorship counts.

You have - squarely - distorted my position. However, I'm quite smilingly well about it. I will begin with the--short--correction and - outpouring of

1. A review of Tolkien's letters, in chronological order, against the truant dates in question (1937 onwards)
2. What we know about what Tolkien did and didn't say, about "The Ring" and certainly only "a ring" not "a Ring" at all in The hobbit, yet ver-ily hahaha nonetheless morthgoroan
3. Context - there certainly IS substance to matters in my materials, even though I'm the 'idiot' hahaha who purportedly idiotically didn't give rat's behind about part of your point, and did indeed care about part of your points.

Have I made my point? It's just fun, right?

Wait

3. UT and materials about Rings and Necromancers and SauronS (plural - Tolkien was rather 'dual-personality-ed' about things. Names evolved. Mythology shifted.
4. The correct point I made about 'pre-Hobbit Lore'.
5. The Hobbit version I have (I never claimed it was 'the original', nor did I ever care to ponder finding a dusty 1933 Hobbit version hahahaha. Back to The Future, please.
6. And six (as in the 'devil's number' hahaha) a book a found in my library, termed Master of Middle Earth, in a delightful return and review of materials.

[Ivriniel]

First up Morgathonron,

I've got about 300 posts here. Anyone who's read any of them, knows very well, that I so very seldom --care--to ground an argument in a specific date, or particularly narrow range of dates.

Because - Master Prof T (as Captain Janeway said "temporal causality loops give me a headache"), **never** wrote anything, ever, once, ever that didn't evolved by the time he started on the ensuing chapter of his 'next' works.

Ergo, I ***ditched*** a long time ago, the foolishly narrow attempt (self-reference, right. Put your ego away--no narcissism here please, it's boring) to 'prescribe' an 'exact' position about anything in the mythology.

I never claimed in any of my arguments that Ungoliant ate the Silmarils. Woops, I mean, I never - ever attempted - to EVER argue that "the 1876 version of the Hobbit, had The Ring (proper noun here please for the point of my item) first and foremost in the Prof's mind, and neither did I care, that he did or didn't.

All my materials were on another mode of methodological analysis, entirely. I prefer the mode that is about inferential 'diagnostic' or 'interpretation' of an author's 'tacit intention' and possibly 'explicit motivations and intentions'.

That is - putting as I did, about the longitudinal analysis --theory.

Even if the 500AD version of the Hobbit 'was written with the dreaded Chapter Five' 'winning riddle variation', what, still can we discern about "Ring-shness' (Proper noun here please) in the --implicit--text. Perhaps nothing. Perhaps not nothing. Perhaps some blend of the two.

Then - locate prose (from the Hobbit) to elucidate. AND

to address your other concerns. "Why would I go outside the Hobbit" to elucidate anything relevant.

Seriously, does that need a response? You know very well, I suspect that The prof had an ---obsession---- with publishing his primary love

The Silmarillion. In a multi-decade battle/exchange with Allen and Unwin, during which, there were indeed profound sanctioning pressures upon him to limit the scope of his narrative.

The anxiety in the Prof's letters about this, strikes me ***again*** as I review Letters, and I'm really surprised the point needs to be made.

Given such a background of anxiety and tussling with Allen and Unwin, for a Professor at a University, where you know very well there are significant torsions upon the self to present, argue, publish, write in a manner that very often deviates from how the core-self seek to write, are you saying that that background pressure was (not) operative (as) he wrote the Hobbit? I cannot -- support -- that tenet.

Ergo, why I interceded to introduce the background mythology - which of course -- was, as I stated, in place, partially at writing of the hobbit. Next post...a little more organised.

[Ivriniel]

1.Precursor Short Comment on Context for an 'Overall' Statement about the Mythology

From the book, Master of Middle Earth, authored by Paul Kocher.

"Tolkien's technique of purposeful ambivalence is well shown too in the Mumak of Harad which Same sees fighting on the side of the Southrons against Faramir's men in Ithilien: '…indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the like of him does not now walk in Middle Earth; his kin that live still in the latter days are but memories of his girth and majesty'". That, is the author goes on to interpret that – extending ambiguity as implicit in the 'what' any beast or artefact of Lore. The author goes on to adapt that to dragons and says, for example, "Tolkien is especially evasive about Angmar's huge winged steed" and "all these half-mythological creatures of Middle Earth are meant to subsist partly in our world, partly in another in which the imagination can make of it what it will".

and

He has a "…lifelong interest in Astrology…" which the author ascribes to Tolkien's calendars (Appendix D) Menelvagor (the Swordsman –Orion) Red Borgil, in The Sickle – Mars", in a modern heliocentric account of Arda (p. 6 Mater of Middle Earth, author, Paul Kocher).

Context materials are for the reader to hold in the background whilst perusing subsequent materials.

2. Chronological Review of The Hobbit's Publication in Second Context:- the Pre-Hobbit Materials Grounded in the Silmarillion - The Professor's Multi-Decade Obsession

Certainly, originally intended as a children's story--in context. It was not written in a mythological vacuum and certainly, there were predating themes very clearly driving Tolkien's mental and imaginary processes, at the time he wrote the Hobbit (the first one). Prima facie as put in Master of Middle Earth

"The Hobbit as being drawn irresistibly towards towards the materials he had been assembling for several years past to tell the history of the earlier ages of Middle Earth So much so that glimpses crept into 'unbidden of things higher or deeper of darker than its surface: Durin, Moria, Gandalf, the Necromancer, the Ring.' For the most part Tolkien manages to keep unobtrusive these 'unbidden' incursions of serious historical matter not properly germane to the children's story, but they do colour the tale and perhaps help to account for those graver, more adult touches we have been discussing. Contrariwise, the writing of The3 Hobbit may well have served to crystallize Tolkien's thoughts about th3e historical materials, and particularly seems to have supplied a num er of ideas that found their way, transformed, into his epic.".

However, the themes elaborated upon in LotR drew on what Tolkien himself has stated that were joining themes. In particular Letter 153 dated the 7th of June 1955. The Necromancer and The Ring were--inevitable--choice of links. The germ of the story was the Necromancer and The Ring. He does say, in a letter that the Ring was not originally high in his thinking or central to the LotR mythology when the original version was written {however, see below. It is not clear where his mind exactly was when made the statement--Hobbit dates are diabolically varied--see below}. In addition, in Letter 35 he took this path, it states, partly because readers had clambored for “more about the Necromancer” (2nd of February 1939).

However, Character transmutation and lore transmutations are -- rife -- in the mythology, and, for example, I recall even on his death bed, (I forget the citation at this time) he commented on the Celeborn and Galadriel, in a latter intended addendum. I can't remember if this one went 'Celeborn was of Eldamar and grandson of Elwe' or 'Celeborn wasn't', I forget). In any case, the argument is that as he writes, ideas morph, and certainly, even in current published tomes, this transmutation is apparent in characterisations--implicitly--in multiple locations. No doubt, for example, the 'Strider' we all know as was introduced, was not the same 'man' in Tolkien's head, by the time he completed the narrative. Clearly, the Hobbit did belong in Middle Earth where his 'precious' Silmarillion also belonged, and clearly, the Hobbit was not intended as 'a prequil' but nevertheless was a quarry for materials for the professor in any case for LotR, and *also* by 'back to the Future-reverso-ramas' -therefore - a joiner also for the FA. This was really, editorial pressure that forced his hand, and because he loved his mythology so very much, the man invented means to use a tool -- a book, the Hobbit that he really didn't foresee as 'the tool', yet tool it was--to bridge works.

Yes, in the first Hobbit, Chapter 5 was a variation on the Chapter 5 in subsequent publication. And it is not correct to say that the Ring itself was not 'the possession' of the Necromancer in -- not correct to say 'the first edition'. It is correct to say that the Ring was made to belong to the Necromancer -- even in the first edition -- very early after the completion of the Hobbit. Stated another way, The hobbit was a seriocomic adaptation, but nonetheless, it served the purposes of bridging anyway. Two tools: the Necromancer and the ring, very quickly The Ring, and even for which version? 1938. There is actually more to this story as well. That is, no, the '1938' version was not 'all there is dates that are relevant'.

Here in 1933 4 -

C.S. Lewis writes to lifelong friend Arthur Greeves about The Hobbit. He said "Since term began [on January 15] I have had a delightful time reading a children's story which Tolkien has just written . . . Whether it is really good (I think it is until the end) is of course another question: still more, whether it will succeed with modern children" (They Stand Together, collected letters from Lewis to Greeves, ed. Walter Hooper, No. 183).

Now, in October of 1936,The Hobbit is retyped, Allen and Unwin read the manuscript in Decemer and suggest he complete it. Then, in September of 1937, and in fact, December of 16-19 - Tolkien starts writing the first chapter of the "New Hobbit", which will later become The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien submits The Father Christmas Letters and The Silmarillion for publication but they are rejected. December of 1937

There is a triple-lock of FA, Hobbit, Revisions and Ring-LORE in 1937 WITH precursor Hobbit writings in 1933.

So - when we interpret from Letters that (see upstream) his 'original' Hobbit ring, was a ring, not a Ring, it is quite already diabolically difficult to disentangle which 'Hobbit' we mean when the Professor makes the concession that he didn't have a link between the Ring and the Necromancer in mind, at first rendition.

Further, he does give us some materials to pacify us. For example, in the 1966 Prologue of The Hobbit, (Second edition) he provides the variation "Of the Finding of the Ring, " stating the 'Bilbo lied to his friends' addendum and Gandalf as very 'strange and suspicious' which seeded the doubt that the Ring was innocent. Of course by this time, we all know that Gandalf knew the story of Sauron's ring. This was about the wondering of the cause of Bilbo's deceit and to connect it dimly with the Ring (part of my materials for the longitudinal analysis, which is pending).

3. What Tolkien said about the 'Schizophrenic' Two Versions of the Hobbit (I'm aware that psychosis and schizophrenia are the correct use of the term. I'm borrowing colloquial licence.

Letter 128, 1st of August 1950, and about Chapter 5, the new version of Chapter 5, "Riddles in the Dark" hits the shelves. Apparently, this came as a suprise to Tolkien (see the Letter). Tolkien wrote the first version of LotR with the UNmodified Hobbit in mind. He had not heard from publicists (again, indications of his weariness about the ongoing struggle with publicists), and so, without the Hobbit being revised, Tolkien went ahead with LotR and adapted the original Hobbit to it. The sequel now depended on the earlier version. The revision, if published, would entail much rewriting of the sequel. It seems that the FORMER was his original intention, even though the second variation (revised Hobbit) could provide a more convincing joiner.

4. Three More Letters, Highlighting the "Transmutation Hypothesis"

Letter 26, dated 4th of March 1938, Turning to his own works, Tolkien said that he had reached the end of the third chapter in the sequel to The Hobbit, but that the story had taken an unpremeditated turn (Three is Company. That is but one chapter beyond the Shadow of the Past and again his mind was evolving the narrative. Then, In letter31 (24th of July 1938), he states the book should have come in in 1938 not 1937 for time for the sequel in 1939. And that the Hobbit was not intended a prequil, because he was preoccupied with the Silmarilloion. However, the context, always with his communications to the Publisher was about anxiety about delays, appeals to understanding, tacit complaint because his loved Silmarillion was not published. Then on the 31st of August, 1938, letter 33. About LotR flowing along.

5. The Silmarillion. What part of which bit was published or ready pre Hobbit.

The Lay OF Leithian was first published in 1928. It had 557 lines by August 23, 1925. The next date appearing is is two and a half years later, 27-8 March, 1928, at line 1161. Afterwards, it was written fully to 1769 lines, up to 2929. Apparently the dates are for copying out of the manuscript, not for their writing, so Tolkien may well have had quite a number of additional passages or concepts earlier before he put them together. It was abandoned in September 1931. However, in 1930 he completes a full draft of The Silmarillion, which is later printed in The Shaping of Middle-earth.

Edit: I edited 'sequil' to 'prequil' in the second last paragraph (I HATE HAVING TO BE THIS PRESCRIPTIVE I ***HATE IT***).

[Ivriniel]

The information is incomplete. I have a social life and have to head out. I'll be back. There are quite a number of additional materials bearing upon my thinking in relation to the 'what' Tolkien 'did and didn't' have in his mind, at time of 'first' Hobbit.

Clearly, overall, however, we have FA materials bouncing about in his head. That means, reaching for inference beyond 'The Hobbit' about the ring, Ring or Rring or rRing *eyes crossed* is relevant.

Also, the "Longitudinal Hobbit Change" materials are not yet put down.

Enjoy your evenings.

and one re-quote of something important

The anxiety in the Prof's letters about this, strikes me ***again*** as I review Letters, and I'm really surprised the point needs to be made.

Given such a background of anxiety and tussling with Allen and Unwin, for a Professor at a University, where you know very well there are significant torsions upon the self to present, argue, publish, write in a manner that very often deviates from how the core-self seek to write, are you saying that that background pressure was (not) operative (as) he wrote the Hobbit? I cannot -- support -- that tenet.

Ergo, why I interceded to introduce the background mythology

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

[spoof]This 'poor sod', is so very 'sodden' about the 'sod' who would need to use the word 'sod' to make a rather 'sodden story' about

misprocessing posts.

Of course, that was exactly ShelGoliant's vomit, Unlighted, friendliness. It's so very Morgothian-isatation and welcome-Un-warmingly, a bit like, "I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve". Thank for your - cause - to have me - smiling - again as I post, and read as I write. The -- need -- to personalise -- by -- group alliancing -- is of course, a bit like primate politics. Wait I'm a primate, I'm referring, or um, refereeing to myself, or. errrm, uuuum, just enjoying making myself --laugh--Who has a sense of humour, would I suppose as well, unless, Morgaron, it's going to be the --idiot-- who would --seriously??? take it so --seriously--that there is -- a seriously, serious ---need --- to um, UnAttack hahahah poster.

You know, if you didn't like that, maybe you should have began by not ridiculing Morth's screen name. Just saying.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

I've got about 300 posts here.

Given that this thread does not yet top 100, this hyperbole seems a little over the top.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Anyone who's read any of them, knows very well, that I so very seldom --care--to ground an argument in a specific date, or particularly narrow range of dates.

Sadly that's true, but I still can't see why others should suffer because of your lack of argumentation - with dates or otherwise.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

You know, if you didn't like that, maybe you should have began by not ridiculing Morth's screen name. Just saying.



Given that this thread does not yet top 100, this hyperbole seems a little over the top.



Sadly that's true, but I still can't see why others should suffer because of your lack of argumentation - with dates or otherwise.

Galardriel, not too bad tonight.

Have a look at some of the comments said about me -- apparently --being a troll. (would you really like me to find the URL's? was it morgaron? I honestly DON"T CARE.

As you can see, I am not. I am merely trying ***very*** hard to simply post light heartedly, and do have a literary foundation and deep love of the mythology. I have seen Morgathon's various attempts to - I don't know - seriously, I don't know what on earth she/he is doing, and why there is the repetitive insistence from that poster about --apparently--my ignorance, dumbness, or abjectly stupid minded incapacity to be a ....troll.

Troll, no. I love the mythology. I have a lot to say about it. I've read a great deal. Must I prove that I know at least some things? And how long further must all this go on, until I'm just allowed to simply enjoy posting a random fun comment, without it being ultra dissected and turned into an excuse by I don't know, whatever.

Who cares

Let's just have fun

Kind regards to you

[Legolas]

Let's keep discussion based on these wonderful texts and our interpretations, and not allow the thread to be consumed by petty jabs at people that disagree.

(Or chat speak and memes.)

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

You know, if you didn't like that, maybe you should have began by not ridiculing Morth's screen name. Just saying.



Given that this thread does not yet top 100, this hyperbole seems a little over the top.



Sadly that's true, but I still can't see why others should suffer because of your lack of argumentation - with dates or otherwise.

Galadriel, this is what you state is the case, even as late at the subsequent 6 items, headed upstream. You also seem to have dismissed, misprocessed or fused information I put down about dates for 1937. It seems you have --implicitly--asserted (not explicitly, implicitly, or tacitly) that I sustained a ring not Ring position for post 1937. Can you please find where I have said so. And just in case an argument then reads 'no no no, that's not what I said', then, alternatively.

Where is it that I seem to be disagreeing with in relation to the main point (made on the thread by -- not just me, but several --), about 50 posts prior, about rings, not Rings and when this [transition of ring to Ring] occurred? Am I making myself clear? I wonder if I am or not. After I hear from you (I'll wait a day or so) and if I haven't, I'll go on to take off where I left off:

The Longitudinal 'Hobbit Character Shift' theory (and I realise it's just a fun idea, and I'm not really married to it. It's just having fun. I actually have very much enjoyed researching because it's delightful reading Tolkien's words about the Ages in the various Tomes I have in my library.


Kind Regards

And I apologise to the readers.

Really, it was Ungoliant who ate the Silmarils, not Morogoth. And that Erebor was chained to Thangorodrim (when Fingolfin cut off his hand above the wrist), Erebor was rescued, resolving the blood feud between the Dwarves and the Elves. That's why Finarfin DID move house to -- MORDOR -- and it's all a trick.

Sauron's real name is Frodo Baggins. Laugh at me please. Because I do. I couldn't possibly enjoy any posting of this kind of technical nature without underscoring, that it was Fatty Bolger who was the Wight at Carn Dum. Technical posts are really HARD to read and enjoy. So enjoy Unreading them. Silmarien married Ar Pharazon, but what happened was, they had a fight, and so, Ar Pharazon got miffed and thought he was leaving Silmarien, but he accidentally headed West, hence Silmarien made it to Elendil, just in time. Back to the Future she went.

And really - that's kinda how Tolkien wrote. If you think about enjoy

[Ivriniel]

I have some specific questions for Morthoron

1. Were you aware that the Hobbit had a pre-1937/8 variant as evidenced by CS Lewis's letter?
2. Were you aware about the state of the Lay of Leithian by 1933?
3. Were you aware that Tolkien's first adaption of LotR used the ***original*** Hobbit as its foundation.
4. Do you assert that the Prof didn't have ongoing anxiety and pressure from Allen and Unwin about publication deadlines (LotR), about despondency for repeated rejection of the Silarillion.
5. Were you aware that the Prof had a pre-Hobbit Silmarillion model?
6 The Devil's Number Do you assert that the 1933 version (typed and read by CS Lewis) or latter version was the one that Tolkien dissociates the ring from the Ring?

7. Did you known that Shelob ate the Silmarils? Or that Ungoliants wanted to eat the Silmarils, or do you assert that Earendil's refuse on Vingilot (what does he eat up there?) has Silmari 'glow' as he tosses out his bowel movements over Vingilot over Arda?

And Morthoron, I'm going to go back to the thread where I was accused of being a 'Troll', and after it, I received a PM pointing out that someone had been PM'd stating that someone else had gone too far.*

I don't remember if it was you who said 'I was a troll', but at the time, actually, I didn't even read it ahahahahah.

as I said, get a sense of humour and seriously, the funniest question: please respondS [Gollum] to number 7

Kind Regrds

[Edit]*names and stones and fixed up tomes, and words that do not break bones[/edit]

STAVROS