Bilbo´s treachery

[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 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.

[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.

Pompous - mildly but humorously, after all, his position on the Sackville Bagginses and all that (though that was adapted in LotR)
But - no - covetous, dissembling - perhaps a little. E.g. the social desirability of polite declinations to Gandalf about guests and s on.

That's interpolation and extending character flaws beyond - arguably - their 'base levels'.

The question that has been explored this thread by several posters was

Did Bilbo's base levels of secretiveness, beguiling by lies of omission, and dissembling (mendatious perhaps to alter the 'flavour' or prevarication, if one imputes more sinister tones) manner increase over the course of the narrative.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

The question that has been explored this thread by several posters was

Did Bilbo's base levels of secretiveness, beguiling by lies of omission, and dissembling (mendatious perhaps to alter the 'flavour' or prevarication, if one imputes more sinister tones) manner increase over the course of the narrative.

Was it, though? I don't recall posts with a longitudinal type of analysis comparing Bilbo "now" against Bilbo "then" within the same edition.

But since you bring it up, no, I don't think Bilbo's innate flaws increase; I just think that the range of application widened. In the Shire, his best and worst deeds were limited to the life of a haughty, comfortable, reasonably well-off hobbit, a life in which formalities could go for ethics, or etiquette for morality - a life in which written contracts matter and "1/14 share" would be calculated to the penny. In the "adventure" part of his travels, Bilbo's actions begin to have a much more profound impact on both himself and his companions. He realized that he has the power to do or not to do, which he can use to, say, save everyone's lives, or make an independent choice for himself. He has a choice to tell the Dwarves about the Ring, or to keep it a secret. Firstly, as Pitch mentioned above, part of his wanted to look daring and dashing to the Dwarves. They have been underestimating his value quite a lot, which would have increased the innate desire to prove oneself. But also there is the issue of independence. When the Dwares need Bilbo, their attitude is "You signed up for this, this is your quest too now, go do the dirty work". But once that's done, Bilbo is just "the burglar" - it's an "us vs him" scenario. Well, if he can't fully be part of this quest, soul and heart, he might as well become his own individual rather than a tag-along to wipe the dirt with. Independence isn't necessarily a lack of reliance; for Bilbo is just has to mean that his agenda does not necessarily hinge on the Dwarves, and having a secret of his own does precisely that. It gives a purpose to the adventure that is specific to him.

And as he discovers the consequences of his choices and actions, he also does a lot of reevaluating. The foundation and framework of his former life becomes less important to him than things that are above mere formality - like food and cheer... and bravery, and friendship, and selflessness, and many more. And at this point his conscience really wins out against any wandering greed, or cowardice, or comfort-seeking-ness, indecisiveness, selfishness, apathy, what have you.

Yes, had his conscience not won, he would have had a greater range of negative deeds at his disposal. But the change is not so much in his own qualities as it is with the range of application of those qualities, and the range of consequences they have on others.

So I have to agree with Morthoron here - the negative qualities Bilbo displays throughout the book are not born at the spur of the moment, they were always present in him - just controlled differently and pointed elsewhere. Likewise, his positive qualities aren't dropped down from the ceiling; they just lay dormant in him, snoozing away in a comfortable life.


EDIT: Just to point out, at this point in the story Gandalf isn't that well-versed in Ring-lore. I don't have FOTR with me, but from what I recall he made the trip to Gondor's library only after Bilbo returned home to the Shire - perhaps even after Bilbo's 111th birthday. The queer look he gives Bilbo after his glorified tale of his escape from the goblins is very much explicable just by the extravagance of the tale, and suspicions specific to the nature of the Ring are quite unlikely.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

EDIT: Just to point out, at this point in the story Gandalf isn't that well-versed in Ring-lore. I don't have FOTR with me, but from what I recall he made the trip to Gondor's library only after Bilbo returned home to the Shire - perhaps even after Bilbo's 111th birthday. The queer look he gives Bilbo after his glorified tale of his escape from the goblins is very much explicable just by the extravagance of the tale, and suspicions specific to the nature of the Ring are quite unlikely.

Yes, according to the Tale of Years Gandalf visited Minas Tirith and read the scroll of Isildur in 3017.

That's not to say that he was ignorant of Ring-lore before that, of course, but it had been Saruman's area of expertise, not his:
"The lore of the Elven-rings, great and small, is his province. He has long studied it, seeking the lost secrets of their making; but when the Rings were debated in the Council, all that he would reveal to us of his ring-lore told against my fears." [The Shadow of the Past]

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Was it, though? I don't recall posts with a longitudinal type of analysis comparing Bilbo "now" against Bilbo "then" within the same edition.

But since you bring it up, no, I don't think Bilbo's innate flaws increase; I just think that the range of application widened. In the Shire, his best and worst deeds were limited to the life of a haughty, comfortable, reasonably well-off hobbit, a life in which formalities could go for ethics, or etiquette for morality - a life in which written contracts matter and "1/14 share" would be calculated to the penny. In the "adventure" part of his travels, Bilbo's actions begin to have a much more profound impact on both himself and his companions. He realized that he has the power to do or not to do, which he can use to, say, save everyone's lives, or make an independent choice for himself. He has a choice to tell the Dwarves about the Ring, or to keep it a secret. Firstly, as Pitch mentioned above, part of his wanted to look daring and dashing to the Dwarves. They have been underestimating his value quite a lot, which would have increased the innate desire to prove oneself. But also there is the issue of independence. When the Dwares need Bilbo, their attitude is "You signed up for this, this is your quest too now, go do the dirty work". But once that's done, Bilbo is just "the burglar" - it's an "us vs him" scenario. Well, if he can't fully be part of this quest, soul and heart, he might as well become his own individual rather than a tag-along to wipe the dirt with. Independence isn't necessarily a lack of reliance; for Bilbo is just has to mean that his agenda does not necessarily hinge on the Dwarves, and having a secret of his own does precisely that. It gives a purpose to the adventure that is specific to him.

And as he discovers the consequences of his choices and actions, he also does a lot of reevaluating. The foundation and framework of his former life becomes less important to him than things that are above mere formality - like food and cheer... and bravery, and friendship, and selflessness, and many more. And at this point his conscience really wins out against any wandering greed, or cowardice, or comfort-seeking-ness, indecisiveness, selfishness, apathy, what have you.

Yes, had his conscience not won, he would have had a greater range of negative deeds at his disposal. But the change is not so much in his own qualities as it is with the range of application of those qualities, and the range of consequences they have on others.

So I have to agree with Morthoron here - the negative qualities Bilbo displays throughout the book are not born at the spur of the moment, they were always present in him - just controlled differently and pointed elsewhere. Likewise, his positive qualities aren't dropped down from the ceiling; they just lay dormant in him, snoozing away in a comfortable life.


EDIT: Just to point out, at this point in the story Gandalf isn't that well-versed in Ring-lore. I don't have FOTR with me, but from what I recall he made the trip to Gondor's library only after Bilbo returned home to the Shire - perhaps even after Bilbo's 111th birthday. The queer look he gives Bilbo after his glorified tale of his escape from the goblins is very much explicable just by the extravagance of the tale, and suspicions specific to the nature of the Ring are quite unlikely.

Hi Galadriel. Interesting thoughts

The longitudinal analysis, upon review of various entries upstream, was implicit in several of my posts, and possibly some of others. Occasionally I find that one evolves or unearths an ambiguous feature or element in an argument.

I'm going to go find some materials, I think for this one, and also for the 'editorial butchery' argument. I have no -- strong -- alliance to the 'Bilbo grew increasingly - evil' from 'Baseline Hobbit'svillian level' theory.

It's going to be a 'bit-of-a-son-of-an-unmarried-couple' to pin, either way, as elucidation of the position is:

1. Atypical argumentation style (i.e. non-canon, and inferential methodology).
2. It's going to be really difficult getting agreement about 'baseline hobbitish' dissembling tendency.
3. Difficult to locate specific textual features in the Hobbit (they are few, in explicit form and several more in the implicit form). As a 'theory' it's going to be, really, just discussion point.

I will attempt it though. Ungoliant seems to be sleeping atm. Shelob as well, good god! And Unlight to Light Tonite

Kind Regards

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Ungoliant seems to be sleeping atm. Shelob as well, good god! And Unlight to Light Tonite

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

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.

To the best of my knowledge, A & U didn't see anything of the First Age materials until after The Hobbit had been published and become a success and the question of a sequel came up, and then rejected it as unsuitable for the audience of TH - which is a good thing, for we wouldn't have The Lord of the Rings otherwise.

As for the state and themes of Tolkien's legendarium before and at the time of writing TH, the materials are all published and documented in the volumes of The History of Middle-earth. There were dragons, mostly used as war machines by Morgoth, but there was also already Glaurung (originally called Glórund), devastating the kingdom of Nargothrond and the lives of the the Children of Húrin. There was a lieutenant of Morgoth (long named Thû, later renamed Sauron) who had a thing for vampires and werewplves, a proficient shape-changer and dread interrogator who won a famous song contest with Felagund, but had yet nothing to do with rings of any kind (Eregion and the Gwaith-i-Mirdain only came into the picture during the writing of LotR). The only ring of any notability was the Ring of Doom, the place outside Valmar where the Valar sat in a circle in council or judgment.

The view that Tolkien wrote The Hobbit as a 'dumbed-down' version of his mythology to get it past a publisher doesn't hold in my opinion because the story wasn't originally devised for publication at all. He made it up as a bedtime story for his children, and elements of his mythology like dragons, dwarves, elves and goblins were used as narrative building bricks because they were lying around in his head anyway - readymades, if you like. But I don't think it was originally meant to be a canonic part of the legendarium any more than, say, Mr Bliss or Roverandom. It became so during the writing of its sequel, as more and more connections were drawn between the story of Mr Baggins, his heir and the Ring and the matter of the First and Second Ages. In the history of the legendarium at large, The Hobbit is, I think, best described as a detour on which hitherto uncharted territory was discovered and some older elements were seen in a new light - the Dwarves, for example, were mostly presented as hostile, treacherous creatures in the earlier material, and a character like Gimli would have been unconceivable then).

And I must say I object to the term 'dumbing down' with respect to The Hobbit. Sure, the mythological trappings are shoved far into the background, kinslaying and incest are completely absent, but we are recompensed for that with a detail and fullness of characterisation we don't find in the legends of the First Age. We get to know Bilbo Baggins better than we ever do Túrin or Beren or Fëanor, warts and wrinkles and all. The Hobbit was a huge progress for Tolkien as a writer without which he could never have given us The Lord of the Rings.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

why would anyone need to assign outside sources to Bilbo's behavior in The Hobbit, or, at least, The Hobbit before it was revised?

Mainly contrariness, like I said. My inner companion just handed me a prompt card, it reads *squints* "I may be wrong. Let's do it your way." But let's not be hasty and await Ivriniel's longitudinal analysis first.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

hahahahahahahahaha

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

...And I must say I object to the term 'dumbing down' with respect to The Hobbit....

Dumbing down was a colloquialism applied to Morthoron's adaptation, in the post prior on the prior page, where she/he adapted an argument and compared creatures in proportions of mythology.

It is a summation of this:

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.

So, 'dumbing down' in that context. I object to having the objection objectively objected into an objecti--ungoliant-- at the morgoth's unFinwe-ised Miriel-unlighted. The premise to pin it on Gollumisaions and back-toUnGaladrieling.

Ie, Pitchwife, please don't pin that on me. It's better where it refers to. Morthoron was asserting that the Hobbit was less Lore-lofty, and I say dumbed down, run in reverse. The pre-AMPED UP variation.

PS: I am doing the research atm.

I'm pretty clear: there's some 1927 materials. That's the basic research premise. I'll be back.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

To the best of my knowledge, A & U didn't see anything of the First Age materials until after The Hobbit had been published and become a success and the question of a sequel came up, and then rejected it as unsuitable for the audience of TH - which is a good thing, for we wouldn't have The Lord of the Rings otherwise.

Yes, I believe Professor Tolkien offered The Silmarillion to Allen & Unwin after the success of The Hobbit, not before, when they requested more fiction from him, but they wanted more about Hobbits.

Of course, the narratives which contributed to The Silmarillion, including 'The Fall of Gondolin', were under composition in late 1916/early 1917 and continued over subsequent years. They were not merely a series of 'notes' but rather fleshed-out (if in some cases unfinished) narratives. This is, of course, all detailed in the two volumes of "The Book of Lost Tales" published as the first two volumes of "The History of Middle-earth".

[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]

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

[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.)

[Morthoron]

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

it's your two assertions I'm testing, as The Ring doesn't have immediate influence over a bearer, and secondly, that The Ring wasn't conceived as a malevolent artefact in The Hobbit.

Ivriniel,

My replies, following the post where William C. Hicklin refutes your assumptions, were in accordance with his refutations. The incredibly circumlocutious posts that you offered later, while they belabored the thread in both a longitudinal and latitudinal manner, are not cogent to the refutations, nor do they in any way bolster your original assumptions. Any reference to the One Ring or the effects of the One Ring were added in afterthought and are not part of The Hobbit as originally published, and The Hobbit had to be revised to make the appropriate plot points, and a backstory (i.e., that Bilbo lied about the "present" and the riddle game) was provided -- after the fact, as all documentation indicates.

The thought of Bilbo's magic ring did not have any significance to Tolkien beyond it being a folkloric motif, a handy device, for the furtherance of the original story. In fact, Tolkien says as much:

Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 23, 17 February 1938, to C.A. Furth, Allen & Unwin

The Hobbit sequel is still where it was, and I have only the vaguest notion of how to proceed. Not ever intending a sequel, I fear I squandered all my favourite 'motifs' and characters on the original 'Hobbit'.

Even after slogging through an incredibly rambling and obtuse series of posts (with various internet jargon asides, acronymic oddments and Ungoliantine fulmination that makes much of what you write impossible to read), I can say without equivocation that you have not unearthed a single jot or tittle to aid in the furtherance of your point.

[Ivriniel]

6. The Quest for Erebor

I've highlighted this entry, separately because it reveals somewhat of Tolkien's thinking and imaginary motivation that he bore upon writing LotR, after the Hobbit was released to the shelves. Chris states in UT that there are three variants of The Quest for Erebor, although no dates to any of the manuscripts are given. The letters "A", "B" and "C" he designates and in seeming chronological order. He states that the earliest version is complete and is entitled The History of Gandalf's Dealings with Thrain and Thorin Oakenshield, although it is "rough" (p. 327, George Allan and Unwin, 1980 Edition), but is a "much emended" manuscript for "complex and hard to unravel" (p. 327). From this manuscript B was made which had a "great deal of further alteration, though mostly of a very minor kind" (p. 327). B is entitled The Quest of Erebor, and also Gandalf's Account of how he came to arrange the Expedition to Erebor and send Bilbo with the Dwarves. Manuscript C, untitled tells

"...the story in a more economical and tightly constructed form, omitting a good deal from the first version and introducing some new elements, but also (particularly in the latter part) largely retaining the original writing. It seems to me to be quite certain that C is latter than B, and C is the version that has given above, although some writing has apparently been lost from the beginning, setting the scene in Minas Tirith for Gandalf's recollections.

The opening paragraphs of B (given below) are almost identical with a passage in Appendix A (III, Durin's Folk) to The Lord of the Rings, and obviously depend on the narrative concerning Thror and Thrain that precedes them in Appendix A; while the ending of 'The Quest of Erebor is also found in almost exactly the same words in Appendix A (III), here again in the mouth of Gandalf, speaking to Frodo and Gimli in Minas Tirith. In view of the letter cited in the Introduction (p.II) it is clear that my father wrote 'The Quest of Erebor to stand as part of the narrative of Durin's Folk in Appendix A.

Although dateless, the materials cited yield particular clues upon which I can continue to research and trace a little more about 'what Tolkien had bouncing around in his head, about the FA and his 'precious' (pardon pun) Silmarillion, in his multi-decade long obsession to publish that -- wonderful -- tome.

First of all, Gandalf did disappear for term when the Dwarves and Bilbo were moving through Mirkwood. Second, materials again support the Transmutation Hypothesis (see upstream) in relation to the prof's most vivid and evolving imagination, meaning and ideas about characters. Importantly, we should trace the history of the author's narratives about -- The Dwarves -- as well. Exactly 'what' he says about them in the Silmarillion, is quite relevant. We know the 'Aule' story. How much of the history of the Seven Fathers was rattling around inside his mind at the time he wrote The Hobbit is unclear. I have a feeling though, that if I review Dwarvish manuscripts, etc, and the tomes and their dates (sometimes the prof did supply dates), that I will unearth more about when he first decided The Ring-S were part of the Silmarillion mythology.

It seems to me also though that anything "Appendix A-ish" might be bridging materials assembled post hoc (in relation to the Hobbit). The 'might be' is important as, of course, quite a lot of the Appendices point to the background mythology and the Silmarillion. As always it is extremely difficult tracking anything down to a clear, crisp conclusion, but I suppose the research itself is the fun.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Ivriniel,

My replies, following the post where William C. Hicklin refutes your assumptions, were in accordance with his refutations. The incredibly circumlocutious posts that you offered later, while they belabored the thread in both a longitudinal and latitudinal manner, are not cogent to the refutations, nor do they in any way bolster your original assumptions. Any reference to the One Ring or the effects of the One Ring were added in afterthought and are not part of The Hobbit as originally published, and The Hobbit had to be revised to make the appropriate plot points, and a backstory (i.e., that Bilbo lied about the "present" and the riddle game) was provided -- after the fact, as all documentation indicates.

The thought of Bilbo's magic ring did not have any significance to Tolkien beyond it being a folkloric motif, a handy device, for the furtherance of the original story. In fact, Tolkien says as much:


Even after slogging through an incredibly rambling and obtuse series of posts (with various internet jargon asides, acronymic oddments and Ungoliantine fulmination that makes much of what you write impossible to read), I can say without equivocation that you have not unearthed a single jot or tittle to aid in the furtherance of your point.

This is quite untrue, and not at all refutation or contra-indication of the various points put about dates. I see only a summation post in elaborate well structured vocabulary, that yet does not summarise, respond to or tackle any of the materials, Morthoron, I have unearthed.

I will add, there is now a day and a half of research in ongoing discoveries, and those materials speak for themselves.

Kind Regards-

Is it rude of me to kindly ask you to please bear upon my presence here with some welcoming? Perhaps something to greet, or to thank, even if the arguments you cite and your opinion vary?

I would appreciate that at this point.

[Ivriniel]

7. The Seven Fathers ( timing of 'numbering' non-accidental ) and Comments about Dates: When did Tolkien First Transcribe Materials about Azanulbizar

I've reserved a special place for that battle because it implicates and crosses over with/unifies:

a. The Mythology and The Silmarillion as it intersects with Ring Lore (not ring lore), in Eregion (West Gate) and Azanulbizar (East Gate) and the migratory patterns and grudge matches of -- both the Orc-and-Dwarves over the pre-Hobbit history. I suspect I'll unearth something dates in the various manuscripts that may assist to pin down the item of discussion about when the ring and the Ring first were a "Ring of Fire" in the Prof's imagination and head. Perhaps Sauron visited the Professor in a dream from The Void.

Just reading atm. I'll be back to edit this post

[Edit]Basic gist--Dwarves are in the Silmarillion. Originally, two lines, not seven. And, I'm not going to lengthen this post, as I haven't been able to find much about the fabled Battle. I've found resolution to satisfactory levels in Numenor, (see downstream), to make the same argument. If I find a Dwarvish treasure trove, I'll be back to this post[/Edit]

[Ivriniel]

8. Silmarillion Materials, Numenor, SA Concepts and Analysis

While I am researching entry 7 above, I've got the conjoined research about The Silmarillion at hand.

The Lays of Beleriand provide some really good bases upon which to explore 'which part' of the Silmillian the prof had ready as early as 1917 (Lay of Leithian). The Lay of the Children of Hurin in alliterative verse and the Lay of Leithian in octosyllabie couples. The alliterative poem was composed while the prof had an appointment at the University of Leeds (1920 - 1925) and he abandoned that for the Lay of Leithian at the end of that tenure "...and never turned to it again" (p. 1 of Preface). The 2000 line poem "...is only a fragment in relation to what he once planned....". It described many of the features we are all famililar with, such as Nargothrond, for example, Beren, Luthien, etc. He worked on the Lay of Leithian

for six years.

abandoning it in turn in September of 1931. However, it was submitted in 1937, 15th of November with the following tomes:

1. Farmer Giles of Ham.
2. Long Poem.
3. Mr Bliss.
4. The Gnomes Material.
5. The Lost Road.

Further, he also sent along with the Silmarillion submission, the Ainulindale, Ambarkanta (The Shaping of the World) and The Fall of the Numenoreans (see p. 364-365, The Lays of Beleriand, George Allen and Unwin, 1985 [it's a beautiful old tome in my library, a hardback edition]).

In The Lost Road (p. 8, Unwin Hyman Limited 1987), and on the subject of Numenor, the entry reads:

"...It must therefore have been something else, already existing when the Lost Road was begun, as Humphre Carpenter assumes in his Biography (p. 170): 'Tolkien's legenof Numenor....was probably composed sometime before the writing of 'the Loast Road, perhaps in the late ninetee-twenties or early thirties.'

Chris speaks of FNI and FNII as two variations on the manuscripts about Numenor, without being prescriptive about times frames and such, with emendations and overlays more the emphasis between the two.

A read of the transcript cites all the golden oldies. Lindon, the Last Alliance, Sauron's rise in Middle Earth and Numenor's pride, yadda yadda. Sauron, Mordor, Elendil, Gil Galad. Except, Sauron is referred to as Thu as well as Sauron (as he is in the original Silarillion), and "This belongs to the pre-Lord of the Rings period" (p. 34).

So, when we juxtapose these materials (Last Alliance, Numenor, pre-1937-Hobbit) with earlier researched materials identifying the Hobbit as having a pre-1937 existence, as early as I think, 1931 (see communication between CS Lewis and co commenting on the draft), there is -- six years -- for the prof to be pondering the intimate linking of the prequel to the sequel.

So, in that 6 (six) years, I find it increasingly unlikely that the author did not -- once -- move the ring to the Ring, ahead of actual publication as, certainly, a tenable plot line.

I acknowledge that the prof himself stated that originally it was a ring. But, the timelines between authorship, submission, editing and publication of the 1937 first tome are very, WIDE. I do not find any explicit prose on this subject (about what the professor was actually thinking in the timeline between typing up and first publication) --ANYWHERE.

We seem to have forgotten, that in ye olden days, first a man wrote it down on paper with pen. Then a man typed it up on a typewriter. It's not like the modern day were we have the liberty of saying 'writing/submission/publication' with narrower timelines.

So, whilst Of the Rings of Power and the Second Age in the Silmarillion, I haven't even touched yet, thus far, even to here, there's more than enough latitude in varied context to put a lid on the monolithic assumption that 'first publication' means the same thing as 'first conceived' as a Ring.

And, I never, prior to this series of entries, ever said as much as I have here, about latitudes of timelines. If you look upstream, I conceded a great deal more. The most I ever stated about the ring becoming the Ring, prior to my research venture was that it seemed to me that by December of 1937, it had become a Ring.

Certainly, not discordant really, as was attributed (Morthoron and Galadriel, in particular) where -- apparently -- I wasn't aware that it was a rrrrr-ing originally and that it was a Ring originally and after December of 1937.

Please find where I have said so.

And certainly, in Chapter II The Shadow of the Past (when it was written), certainly, we have the LotR plot about RRRRings, although the conceived title (as I stated much, much earlier) was LotRRRRRRRRR (December 1937 cut in stone). And Ringwraiths appear in WRITING (I don't know when in HIS HEAD they appeared) but there is a letter I cite (I think) that puts Nazul-ian birth as sometime after 1937.

[Edit]'rrrr' to replace typographical 'R' - apologies for the error[/edit]
[Edit]'RRRR''s added and last sentence varied.[/edit]

[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]

And this for Morgothrond before I post the 'next bit' about Longintidinal de-The Hobbit-isation-of-the*r*-ing (ie Bilbo bearing the 'R'ing, not 'r'ing) hypothesi.....erbole.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Ivriniel,

My replies, following the post where William C. Hicklin refutes your assumptions, were in accordance with his refutations. The incredibly circumlocutious posts that you offered later, while they belabored the thread in both a longitudinal and latitudinal manner, are not cogent to the refutations, nor do they in any way bolster your original assumptions.

Really?

The thought of Bilbo's magic ring did not have any significance to Tolkien beyond it being a folkloric motif, a handy device, for the furtherance of the original story. In fact, Tolkien says as much:

This one gets two 'reallies'.

Really Number one: Really - I haven't already said this, about as many times as Queen Beruthial had cats? and

Really Number two: Really, you really want to really say that, rather than an Unreally? (i.e. to borrow a Tolkien-ean fun way of 'backup up/out' of a dead end argument. As I often say, Feanor was UNfriends with Galadriel--forever (which pre-Facebook used to sound really hilarious to me n my kin, and friends who read the mythology. We used to laugh until crying about some of the linguistic nuances of the works, and Ungoliant's UNlight was 'verily or nigh' (choose one or the other) example.

Even after slogging through an incredibly rambling and obtuse series of posts (with various internet jargon asides, acronymic oddments and Ungoliantine fulmination that makes much of what you write impossible to read), I can say without equivocation that you have not unearthed a single jot or tittle to aid in the furtherance of your point.

Particular nuances and efferfecence-es (spelling mistake for fun--Baggins-es) I think you'll find Morthoron that many of my 'incredibly rambling and obtuse (you know OBTUSE means 'STUPID' not 'TANGENTIAL' don't you) have some little echo of what I loved about Tolkien's etymological and linguistic sense of humour.

And, yes, I'm the 'intelligent idiot' aren't I for labouring - just for you - to actually get out a cogent (sorry, it's cogent, Morgathrond) position statement. I'll summarise the heuristic.
"

...put a lid on the monolithic assumption that 'first publication' [of The Hobbit] means the same thing as 'first conceived' as a Ring [in the absolutist sense, as NOT BEFORE December of 1937]...

Guache self-quote, I confess, though, I do wish to highlight the important point 'stupidly' that I developed in the post series. And I add, that the donging-on-the-head of the --assumption-- does NOT preclude the conjoint, co-existence of the concurrent assumption, that

the ring was a ring in the ring that Bilbo found, in Hobbit Version minus 1000, written 3500BC (ie the 1937 Hobbit) and became a Ring (temporal causalisty loops give me a headache (*Captain Janeway, Voyager--omg, my brain hurts) by DECEMBER of 1937.

This, in my 'stupid' argumentative series means that -- contrasting the two assumptions -- there is a six year window of ***DOUBT*** about which (oh my god, my head hurts) hypothesiss-es hobbitses applies. That is, the Hobbit was READ by CS LEWIS sometime in or around or prior to 1931. We do not know 'which' 'Hobbit' Tolkien was referring to when he states that his ring was the ring not the Ring in LETTERS, for example (and I have QUOTED which LETTER he did say what he did).

Kind Regards to you, Morthoron. Thank you for the fun.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

And this for Morgothrond before I post the 'next bit'...

I've edited your post for clarity by omitting most of your blurb. I'll leave in the juvenile misspelling of my name that you have continued unabated throughout your posts, much like your incessant maundering. You do yourself a disservice by rambling, mitigating what might be clearer debate. Concision, thy name is not Ivriniel.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

This, in my 'stupid' argumentative series means that -- contrasting the two assumptions -- there is a six year window of ***DOUBT*** about which (oh my god, my head hurts) hypothesiss-es hobbitses applies. That is, the Hobbit was READ by CS LEWIS sometime in or around or prior to 1931. We do not know 'which' 'Hobbit' Tolkien was referring to when he states that his ring was the ring not the Ring in LETTERS, for example (and I have QUOTED which LETTER he did say what he did)..

I refer here to another error in your research. I have underlined it for ease of reference. Humphrey Carpenter, in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, writes the following forward to a letter dated January 4, 1937 (Letter 9, to Susan Dagnall, Allen & Unwin Ltd.):

Tolkien wrote the greater part of The Hobbit during his first seven years as Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford. A text was in existence by the winter of 1932, when it was read to C.S. Lewis, though at this stage the typescript apparently lacked the final chapters, and broke of shortly before the death of Smaug.

So, the letter of C.S. Lewis you refer to, written in 1933, recalled Lewis reading The Hobbit in the winter of 1932 (or, per Lewis, a bit later in that same winter, January 15, to be exact). This was The Hobbit that was eventually published, and the one Tolkien was reading to his children -- not some other, phantom Hobbit floating about like a garish specter in or before 1931 with visions of malign Rings created by Dark Lords dancing in the children's heads.

In any case, and beyond your blatant error, there is no indication here, and you have not provided anywhere, that the magic ring was anything other than a magic ring, a folkloric motif for which Tolkien was fond. Like talking troll purses. Or magic diamond cufflinks that fastened themselves. Or trolls that turn to stone at sunrise. Or caves with magic keyholes. Or glow-in-the dark-when-orcses-are-around Elven swords. Or moon runes. Or animal table servers. Or spectral white stags. Or disappearing fey banquets. Or talking Odinic ravens. Or a black arrow that always returns to the rightful bowman.

In addition, not only did Tolkien have to rewrite the character of Gollum to fit the later, revised story of his birthday present (which, as we know from reading the actual, original version of The Hobbit, Gollum was gladly willing to give to Bilbo because, of course, it was not the One Ring), Sauron had to be added as well:

Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 163, to W.H. Auden

...I had no conscious notion of what the Necromancer stood for (except ever-present evil) in The Hobbit, nor of his connexion with the Ring. But if you wanted to go on from the end of The Hobbit I think the ring would be your inevitable choice as the link. If then you wanted a larger tale, the Ring would at once acquire a capital letter; and the Dark Lord would immediately appear. As he did, unmasked, on the hearth at Bag End as soon as I came to that point.

As soon as I came to that point. This indicates that indeed the connection was arrived at while he was writing Lord of the Rings -- at Bag End to be specific. As I stated previously, Tolkien got a great idea (as great writers often do) to incorporate the magic ring and the Necromancer into a greater tale of the One Ring (given now a capital letter, as Tolkien stated) and the immortal Maia Sauron, for whom he managed at great expense to barge down the river from the Isle of Werewolves in the 1st Age. Because, as we also know, the 2nd Age hadn't been invented yet.

And this is where I leave this addled conversation. I have no intention of wading through the mire any further. I believe I have proved my point without further elucidation -- or an adversary's erring, unproven assumptions that remain unproven after many posts.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

So, the letter of C.S. Lewis you refer to, written in 1933, recalled Lewis reading The Hobbit in the winter of 1932 (or, per Lewis, a bit later in that same winter, January 15, to be exact). This was The Hobbit that was eventually published, and the one Tolkien was reading to his children -- not some other, phantom Hobbit floating about like a garish specter in or before 1931 with visions of malign Rings created by Dark Lords dancing in the children's heads.

In any case, and beyond your blatant error, there is no indication here.

My point exactly and makes no difference anyway. The YEARS in between are where I -- sustain -- my position.

Apologies for 31-ing instead of 33-ing.

However--the 'blatant error' is merely vocabulary to distract, Mothoron. It's imprecise and evidences misunderstanding of the basic premise outlined.

I've noticed a tendency for your arguments to use -- extreme -- or -- exaggerated -- interpolations. For example...

I can say without equivocation that you have not unearthed a single jot or tittle to aid in the furtherance of your point

I must say though, I laughed so hard when I read it, (I was on my IPhone in a public place at gym) and I couldn't suppress my laughter. I was almost crying with joy. It's just somehow really, really, funny. As in, at least I think so.

Um, as for the rest of your post - it does strike the eyes and evoke more chuckling. Um, I'm not trying to assert

you have not provided anywhere, that the magic ring was anything other than a magic ring, a folkloric motif for which Tolkien was fond. Like talking troll purses. Or magic diamond cufflinks that fastened themselves. Or trolls that turn to stone at sunrise. Or caves with magic keyholes. Or glow-in-the dark-when-orcses-are-around Elven swords. Or moon runes. Or animal table servers. Or spectral white stags. Or disappearing fey banquets. Or talking Odinic ravens. Or a black arrow that always returns to the rightful bowman..

Actually my only other primary point (the Longitudinal, not Latitudinal 'circumlocious' addenda) hypotho-bagginses. I also really loved 'Ungoliantine fulmination' as another belly-laughing moment.

Yours Ungoliantine-esely

Iv-gonial, Ungol-niel, wait, UnVriniel, erm, Silmari-riniel, um, I've lost my identity! Look what you've done to me.

[Ivriniel]

PS, what's a 'latitudinal' argument? I've not heard the term. It entered the place in my mind where's there's wormhole that just starts my convulsive laughing. I saw, for example, 'lines of latitude - draw - over a post. Or - variation in width of the actual dimensions of a physical post. I'm sure you must mean something conceptual though. Please educate me.

Kind Regards

Iv-Goliant

[Edit]I just finished wiping actual tears of laughter with a tissue from my eyes--and that post on the Arkenstone thread - about Balgrogs skiing - oh no...the laughing has started again hahahaha[/edit]

[Ivriniel]

And

@Morthorom

About my 'blatant' error - I'll spell out what it's Ungoliantine-ish (it's only an 'ish' not a full blown Ungoliant as in your processing error) about my -competing- hypothesis - to spell it out...

is NOT about 'variations in text' between the 5000 BC (1933) and 1937 First Release VersionSES (Bagginses) of the HobbitS.

I've - how many times, Mortharon - mentioned

TEMPORAL - then causality loops.

My competing hyperbola is about TIME (N-O-T---C-O-N-T-E-N-T) in variations in WHAT the prof WAS v WAS NOT thinking about in relation to r-ings when he made his LETTERS comments, CONCEDING (as I have conceded) that it became a R-ing AFTER (time/slip) WRITING, the Dreaded Wight of Bag End.***

So - have another look at my heuristic, upstream (and vary the number of years by two, down from six, to four - apologies - you see, I'm really just like you - an Ungolai-rian in me, as well.

Yours KINDLY and smilingly

[Edit]***The Dreaded Wight at Bag End is the 'revised' tome, that 'would' or 'could' or 'might' or 'should' exist, WERE The Hobbit's LORE -- your word -- AMPLIFIED -- to be more cogent, or narratively consistent, or prescriptively aligned with, or inferentially non-maleficently yet incrementally similar {but certainly not without 'circumlocutIONS' - not circumlotuANIONS as in chemistry} to LotR.[/edit] (highlighted for a purpose, in the pending 'longitudinal theory'.

Armenelos-Imrahil-Gilmith-VRINIEL

[Ivriniel]

...put a lid on the monolithic assumption that 'first publication' [of The Hobbit] means the same thing as 'first conceived' as a Ring [in the absolutist sense, as NOT BEFORE December of 1937]...

...And I add, that the donging-on-the-head of the --assumption-- does NOT preclude the.....

Competing one - yours - about content, not timing.

[Ivriniel]

Just when I thought I'd unearthed all the funny bits, I found ANOTHER -

Originally Posted by Morthoron

So, the letter of C.S. Lewis you refer to, written in 1933, recalled Lewis reading The Hobbit in the winter of 1932 (or, per Lewis, a bit later in that same winter, January 15, to be exact). This was The Hobbit that was eventually published, and the one Tolkien was reading to his children -- not some other, phantom Hobbit floating about like a garish specter in or before 1931 with visions of malign Rings created by Dark Lords

***D-A-N-C-I-N-G***

in the children's heads.

HAHAHAHAHAHA - 'garish spectres' of 'phantom' soorrrrry - belly laughing - of Ungoliantines, (u spelt spectER wrong, wait, so did I) ...with 'visions of malign RRRRings created by hahahahaha DARK LORDS (nooooo, Necroman-GOLIANTS) hahahaha dancing IN the Children's HEADS.

MY STOMACH HURTS !!! STOP IT hahahshshs

At the least, we ARE in SOMEONE's heads, even though we haven't yet made it Into the Prof's HEAD, which is what my ***obtuse***'heuristic-ses' hahahaha was trying to achieve.

I can see, you've 'evolved' your position to 'agree' hahahaha with me hahahahaha

[Ivriniel]

For Morthoron. You said:

In addition, not only did Tolkien have to rewrite the character of Gollum to fit the later, revised story of his birthday present (which, as we know from reading the actual, original version of The Hobbit, Gollum was gladly willing to give to Bilbo because, of course, it was not the One Ring), Sauron had to be added as well:

*yawns* tired. Addressed, more times than the number of Cats the Queen Beruthial had. I refer, to example 'the dreaded chapter 5' upstream in my tittle-ingly stupid rants. Also address, oh my god, Morthoron, seriously, read again. I think I argue at three times that LotR (first rendition) referenced the UNvaried-UNsighted (woops uncited, no, I like Unsight, better hahahaha) HOBBIT version minus 1000, 2500 BC (i.e. the 'earliest one', and I use that date, 2500BC, to go back 'just in case' early enough, to be sure we know that 'earliest' Hobbit, means the garish tittles cited in the 1937 book). I knooooowww about his letters thingy. It's INCLUDED in my materials.

YET (and this bit you've still not absorbed) - Tolkien - HAD submitted the varied Hobbit manuscript (version 10,000, 3,500 AD, ie, the lovely one we all know) with all your yes, yes and yes, 1. birthday present 'gift' to 'deceptacon' lie thingy to Gandalf (the dreaded Chapter 5) WELL BEFORE he handballed draft one LotR to Allen and Unwin. I ***state*** several times this point, for another point, not your point, or the other point, you know the other one, but for these two points

1. Tolkien was battle weary, anxious and -- avoided -- updating publicists with variations in his ideas in regards to WHEN (TEMPORAL hypo citied) the Hobbit with spectres, garish of malign children's Rings filled posters' heads with Ringlore and Ash Nazg-Smeagaol, GOLL.....IANTs of ***DANCING*** hahahaha DarkLords.
2. Stuff about Hobbit Rings emerging ANYWAY in pre 'Dreaded Chapter 5 revisions' of the revised Wight at Bag End.(recall, the Dreaded Wight at Bag end was the UN-children's version of the amplified Hobbit, in the correct prequel, fore-ordained. The Dreaded Wight at Bag End - was it - the Ring, or Bilbo of Frodo - or Fredegar-Gollum?

Points 1. and 2. highlighting my materials about the points Mortharon makes , that were already made here and then summarised, again, in series of specific questions, some gross or so, upstream also, ***ahead*** of Morthron's assertions, here, claiming that I said Balrogs retired with needlecraft.

What I said was:

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'.

And Morthoron, do read the whole post. It is clearly speaking in turn.

***Canon-ITE TEST. You FAILED. You DIDN'T NOTICE THE ERROR!!!!! hahahahaha

[Ivriniel]

**pauses**

I'm not posting the Longitudinal Latitude-grid-post-width theory about Bilbo-s amped up variant in the book, The Dreaded Wight at Bag End (the spectral black variant of White garish spectre-Stags where the Hobbit ideas -- morphed -- in the prof's head).

No necessity to cite the summary heuristic I developed. Though I'll add it in. You can do this extra analysis -- as I always SAID -- whilst CONCEDING the -- various whatevers whoever wants to say whatever about them about the 1937 Hobbit. The stuff of the 'longitudinal' bit, will use our fabled, known, lovely, Dreaded Chapter 5 revisions.

Not doing this, until the Balrog travels to Erebor through lava conduits to migrate the Silmaril that belonged to .....Maedhros....who tossed it away, coz it burned his hand.

(ie - let's stamp out one item at a time. I'm waiting to see if Morthoron or anyone else has anything else to say about the items upstream. I'll wait a day or two. If nothing, I'll add in the new stuff.)

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Actually my only other primary point (the Longitudinal, not Latitudinal 'circumlocious' addenda) hypotho-bagginses. I also really loved 'Ungoliantine fulmination' as another belly-laughing moment.

Yours Ungoliantine-esely

Iv-gonial, Ungol-niel, wait, UnVriniel, erm, Silmari-riniel, um, I've lost my identity! Look what you've done to me.

So, on another forum where I spend time, a member posted a random story about his morning ritual, which he calls "The Terminator", and which he felt the need to share with everyone. He told this story right in the middle of a thread about boxing, of all things. Nothing remotely resembling a segue led up to the story; he just threw it in the middle of the thread.

He described how he crouches down in the shower in the classic "naked terminator traveling through time" pose, with his eyes closed for about a minute (visualizing either Arnold or the guy from the second movie) and he starts to hum "The Terminator" theme. Then he slowly rises to a standing position and opens his eyes.

He said that this ritual helps him to proceed through his day as an emotionless, hard-core cyborg, and he ended by saying that the only problem is if the shower curtain sticks to his leg as he steps out; it ruins the fantasy for him.

After reading this outré non-sequitur I was fairly confused for a while. And then I logged in to the Barrow Downs Forum, read what I quoted above, and "The Terminator" story made a lot more sense.

Ivriniel, thank you for clearing this up for me.

[Ivriniel]

*warm smiles*

John Whatshisname was pretty awesome. I grew very (happily) cross-eyed during the Terminator mythology. I loved the chin-ups scene with the mother. Favourite bit. No-one bar me seemed to like John Carter -- I just absolutely loved it --

Anyhooz Temporal Hyperbola about times and Time Loops *wipes brow* (phew, so far, so good. I might, if things keep going smilingly, be able to do the longitudinal.....hmm, I need a better word. It's too turgid, that.)

Kind Regards

[Ivriniel]

Morthoron, I've found an - it's not quite an 'error' - what you've done is diverting of focus. This interrupts the pause.

You said, actually, watch:

Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 23, 17 February 1938, to C.A. Furth, Allen & Unwin

The Hobbit sequel is still where it was, and I have only the vaguest notion of how to proceed. Not ever intending a sequel, I fear I squandered all my favourite 'motifs' and characters on the original 'Hobbit'.

It's going too far to call it 'devious', and that would be ***wilfully*** nonsensically, UNfun of me. And dark lords as you so rightly pointed out, dance with -- slippers -- and may I add -- the Lidless Eye, must have had ***some*** means of bobbing about in children's minds.

So, it's certainly not 'devious' of you to cite that item. But, as you know, the TITLE LotRRRRRRRR (with The Dreaded Wight at Bag End prequel) not Lotr (with the Hobbit prequel) was -- in place -- by DECEMBER of 1937.

Ergo, your point, actually, inadvertently highlights exactly what I mean on two fronts. The first is -- you can't trust the letters he wrote Prima Face on ***some*** areas where those letters are to the Publisher.

He was anxious, fraught, at times in poverty, pressured by horrific deadlines at the then University system, and by other -- no doubt -- malevolent egoic interactions amongst his cohort. He wrote to Unwin and always, beleaguered and the context was to 'beg borrow or steal' more writing time for LotR. And recall, he was disheartened, probably disenchanted about the repeated rejection of his beloved manuscript, The Silmarillion.



Sooooo '...vaguest...' notion - does not impute - 'ring' - and with I would add, high likelihood.



It means 'give me space, give me a break, you rejected my works, I'm gunna need a bitta time to get this show on the road'..

AND

Do indeed ponder the likelihood that he was also -- passively resentful -- and quietly, probably even resentfully figuring out how he could -- USE -- the opportunity to sneak in/get in/squash in, as much as he could of the FA and SA.

Now - that is not at all a topical assertion. If you look at my post (not that one, but not that one, but you know that one) you'll see it repeatedly asserted that he was 'lengthening' 'extending' 'distorting'







TIME.






AND IN FACT, HE AND CS LEWIS DIVIDED UP ANOTHER PROJECT. CS LEWIS BANGED ON ABOUT SPACE, AND TOLKIEN ABOUT TIME, IN THEIR ORWELIAN 'EELOY/MORACK' OBSESSION /LIKE THINGMEBOB IN ANOTHER WRITING PROJECT....

HE DISTORTS TIME IN TWO WAYS IN THE MYTHOLOGY. ONE IS TERMINATOR-ISH (THANK YOU TO THAT AWESOME POSTER TO HELP ME OUT) AND THE OTHER WAY - 'RACK OFF ALLEN AND UNWIN - I NEED TIME'









Ergo - The Dreaded Wight at Bag End.

I wonder, seriously. With that massive pressure upon him - fiscal, editorial, emotional - from publicists, during such a -- hideous -- time in history (people dropping dead all around him and he lost so many of his friends in WWI), WHAT he was thinking between 1933 and 1937.

Seriously, he and CS Lewis, used to meet on Fridays (you know this) do discuss their loved works, to find beauty in their lives, while the world went totally crazy around them. I cannot possibly NOT imagine that Necromancers were not the Thu/Sauron of SA/Numenor (see my posts please), probably even AS he wrote it and also THIS one for Numenor. What he said in Letters - who quite knows exactly - his unique motivational emphasis depending on recipient.

However, YES - it does seem, that it was ring - initially. But certainly not as late as 1938. The date range for his 'thinking' was, of course, between 1933 to 1937 and with the triple lock of FA/SA materials/Hobbits/Dark Lords BY 1933.

So - in conclusion, I'm pretty sure I did say that Balrogs swam through lava conduits, carrying Silmarils too and from in Albatross migratory patterns, but underground, but I'm still not sure if they sew needle craft between Morgoth's Dagor thiny's? Perhaps that's why Luthien got in Thangorodrim. I mean, she and Beren were flying with winged clothes, so, perhaps they chatted about a needed repair at the gates.

Kind Regards

Ungol-viel

[Pitchwife]

Wait a minute, I've got it. Tolkien first drew a connection between the Necromancer and the Ring while working on a sequel to The Hobbit in late 1937 / early 1938, but then went back in time to 1933 and told his younger self all about it, is that it?

And he did so with the help of Tom Bombadil, who is actually a Time Lord who travelled through all the history of Arda before he was marooned in Third Age Eriador together with his companion, Goldberry - which is how he could have seen the first acorn etc. and Treebeard could still be the eldest living creature, because, well, Tom came from the future in his house, which is of course a Tardis with its chamaeleon circuit intact, or how do you suppose it was able to conjure up a room with four mattresses and matching slippers for Frodo and his friends?

Sorry, Ivriniel, life is too short for this. I'm out.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Wait a minute, I've got it. Tolkien first drew a connection between the Necromancer and the Ring while working on a sequel to The Hobbit in late 1937 / early 1938, but then went back in time to 1933 and told his younger self all about it, is that it?

In response to the ? (question mark), No. Elaborating:

It's to go -too- far into the terminator conceptions to put it that way, Pitchwife, though the movies assist to clarify an idea. Tolkien did not write a time-travel series. He was very interested in time travel though, as we (perhaps) see in echoes of Alboin's ponderings in our world, as his mind cast back to Numenor from Earth. Middle Earth as three ages, predating 'real modern history' is not a new idea. He also had a writing project about it (time travel) with CS Lewis who focussed on Space.

The extent to which I draw upon the Time feature makes the point about the real time between 1933 and 1937 primarily. Because The Hobbit was in readiness, basically (almost) by 1933, I'm making the argument that in that 4 years (and you can add 1 or 2 if you're being liberal), that's a lot of real time to ponder Necromancers, rings, even Rings.

The trouble is, the Letter/s in question don't point to how the 'Terminator-esque' authoring style kicked in to bridge the Hobbit with LotR. There were other choices. I suppose he could have 'greed-ised' the Arkenstone as an artefact of secret evil, undetected. Or varied the Hobbit to greed-ise the Arkenstone. Or any such varied plotlines.

The extent to which I speak of 'Tardis' 'Terminators' etc goes to the human mind in writing novels. You don't have the final plot done in your head. Some I suppose do. Most authors probably back-edit, or add plots, etc as they go. Tolkien had messy notes. He says in 1938, that what should have happened is that:

was said upstream under as
item 4.:

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 [edit of prior entry: 'in' not '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.

This letter series is important. Tolkien saying "it should have been" 1938 means something. Specifically, just four examples are given. These are by no means the spectrum of internal motivations that can be imputed (this one is specifically for Morthoron) in the paralingual text (or in the paralinguistic features) of the text*.

a. 'in hindsight, Unwin and Allen, I should have contacted you earlier, to let you know that I had an idea about the Hobbit, and can we -- pull -- the publication and -- I have this variation that I should have put in, some time ago, but didn't, and it fits better'. ***A 'hindsight/Inspired Post-Hoc basic imaginary motivational system***

or

b. 'it should have been 1938, because I needed time'. For whatever reason, an idea came to me sometime earlier. ***A 'time-pressed/stressed/I avoid you'*** motivational construct. Common in relationships with publishers.

c. I didn't imagine though that it was going to matter, thinking that when I finished it in 1933, I hadn't expected it was going to get published, and when I first gave it CS Lewis, I hadn't much considered necromancers and rings, but it has since occurred to me that there are two obvious joiners: Ring and Saurons, but you know guys (Allen and Unwin) it's just so difficult communicating with Editors, and it would have meant lots of expence and typing, and there's a war raging. London just got bombed and I'm worried about my family, so I didn't prioritise re-working the 1933 manuscript into a the prequel or -- any of its various possible structures, until life just overcame me with its popularity. ***An 'avoidance/expense' motivation to explain a delayed response***

or

d. Look guys (Allen and Unwin), you're just really difficult to negotiate with and youZ have rejected my Silmarillion so many times, I just hate asking you for anything. Here, have my bedside tale. It helped calm my kids during the war, but I had my Silmarillion quite handy in my head, and really, a Ring was quite early on in my mind, but RACK off publishers, and do what you want with the book I DON'T want to really passionately publish, and GIVEN THAT you DON'T want to publish the mythology, WHO CARES, whether or not I turn it in a Ring. I hate you publishers. Tired. Good night. ***a RESENTMENT/REJECTION/ABANDONMENT/SHAME motivational system. I go for this one, because he was a stoic, reserved, Anglo Saxon of the then Christian mind. Lots of shame. Lots of fear of social outcasting for deviating from the dominant social milieu and

e. Ungoliantisations of Manwe's backside, hindsighted, through Eonwe's purple hair. ***A IVRIENIEL IS STUPID BUT STILL NAUGHTY SOMETIMES motivation, because - maybe you guys one day will find out, what life and death experiences I've been through, and narrowly survived to live with a sense of humour.***

They're just three (hahahaha - has anyone picked up that I deliberately, do this, just a weeee bit) options (three options). I understand in Letters he talks about having 'used up' all his 'favourite' Lore things in the Hobbit. But that's just really not quite 'true'. Obviously not. The Silmarillion was concurrently ready and available in 1933. As IF an English Professor socialised by the then Anglo Saxon traditions at sparingly sharing internal feelings, in a STOIC world was GOING TO EVER share his private thoughts to a publisher or to anyone, deeply, except PERHAPS, his wife, and son. PERHAPS, Christopher knows only somewhat of the story.

We just don't know exactly 'when' he morphed the mythology? of the Hobbit {and - recall that it really goes the other way - he wrote a 'dancing Dark Lords' version of the Silmarillion for his children. Really, it was the Hobbit that was 'morphed' --AWAY--from the extant pre-existent mythology, not the other way around. He didn't 'morph' the Hobbit's mythology TO BECOME Silmarllion-ised. This goes to Morthoron's 'amplification' theory. That's a whole nuther item}. It's possible that he knew by 1937 {that there was a R-ing in his head, while the actual manuscript was being PRESSED} and hadn't known how to halt the publication machinery. It's not 2015, where halting and re-starting publication can be done in a day.

And as I said, the Silmarillion was concurrent. He 'goblin-ed' instead of 'Orc-ed' and 'Bard-ed' instead of 'Numenorean-ised'. But Orcrest and Glamdring and Gondolin and Gundabad, and Numenor - all already in his head - and written in the 'voice of narrative drama' not children's tales.

So - the ring. We just don't know exactly when from1933 onwards he morphed it, internally, into Sauron's 'reason' for Numenor to return to Middle Earth in the Last Alliance to defeat him.

The Last Alliance, was a concept, cut in stone in his pre-Hobbit materials.

[Edit] for Morthorond. Perhaps you might like to comment on paralinguistic facets of textual analysis. I take it from your reasoning style at the Boards that you've read a great deal and that you are a very gifted scholar. Your vocabulary is extensive and exemplary. Otherwise, no word - no brainer - the thread's nearly done.[/edit]

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

And he did so with the help of Tom Bombadil, who is actually a Time Lord who travelled through all the history of Arda before he was marooned in Third Age Eriador together with his companion, Goldberry - which is how he could have seen the first acorn etc. and Treebeard could still be the eldest living creature, because, well, Tom came from the future in his house, which is of course a Tardis with its chamaeleon circuit intact, or how do you suppose it was able to conjure up a room with four mattresses and matching slippers for Frodo and his friends?

Sorry, Ivriniel, life is too short for this. I'm out.

Well, it's a funny post, actually. I'm not belly laughing, but it's funny. It seems to me that it's Morthoron who for some strange reason, tickles my funny bone. It's a mystery, to me actually, and I'd love it if you used the metaphor in the funny style (it's funny ) to reconnect with the materials.

Yes - life is too short - I decided, that, which is why I stopped being upset about thread materials that disagree with my opinion.

As my wonderful set of [funny] friends say - who I see often - 'opinions are like assho**s everybody has one'. I actually just spent the morning with a friend, who asked 'why is your voice croaky at the moment, Stav'. My reply "oh my god, I've never laughed so hard in a very long time. I'm enjoying this site where people are just so funny sometimes about canon-propriety.

It's wonderful, isn't it, having a life. And I don't know - are you suggesting only you have one away from here, or, um that I don't have one because I've written so much? Or that varying your posting style to Tardis to echo others' presence-ss (my precious, that it's time say 'I'm out').

I don't care, really. So, it's funny Pitchwife. I normally don't spend OH MY GOD - two days researching stuff. But, I did. I did it, to respect Morthoron, actually. Strangely, this has been lost on this stream. I understand that she/he really does appreciate -- CANON -- and so, I'm the 'idiot' (obtuse, I am was in her/his words) that - enjoyed - being told I was an idiot. Enjoyed being spanked, yanked, pushed, prodded, and were I younger, I'd have done what I no longer do.

Spitfire in reply. I curbed it. Started to allow it. Responded to content, sent thank you's, kind regards-es, and allowed it all. So here I am - at the other side. I normally would NEVER take such a time and delight in research and outpouring.

Yet, Pitchwife, these boards ARE part of my life. They are part of yours. And, that doesn't mean they are ALL my life. That's nonsense. And it's also nonsense to imply or suggest that any Canonite who has spent their career or LIFE dedicated to the Canon world to suggest it is NOT a life for those folk.

So, I appreciate your comments. I've enjoyed meeting you. I really liked the tie to Stephen Donaldson. And--I don't care, if you're cross at me. I'll live, and I'll allow it, and I'll enjoy being the -- good -- person I am.

Kind Regards - please re-engage, if you like. If you don't, as I said - I don't care. This thread's almost done. I do note, though, that between posting each round, there are an additional several dozen, sometimes several hundred reads.

So, that's another thing about words. I don't care, that I do care, that is to have a care, about care -- IN FACT -- to care, enough -- not to care, when - to care less, is to care more, and that's the funny thing about -- Grace. Whether or not you're a Christian, Grace is an aspirational -- term. That's why "...I like less that half of you half as well as you deserve...".

So, I'll take that as a good sign. I'm going to summarise the findings, in a crisp concluding post, with all the best bits of the -- JOURNEY.

I believe that people meet for a reason. I also believe our reason for meeting, Pitchwife is much more elusive than a gripe or two. Bear with me.

Kind regards

Iv