Bilbo´s treachery

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Do you recall that or not?

Are you talking about the "queer look" that Gandalf gives Bilbo in Chapter 5? I think that this may be a revision, but it doesn't change the fact that the material in Chapters 13 to 17 dealing with the Arkenstone does not appear to have been revised, which would show that Professor Tolkien wrote Bilbo's actions that way before he conceived of the Ring as being an evil influence. Maybe in hindsight the Ring could be hypothesised to have had a role, albeit one never stated as such by Professor Tolkien, but there was definitely a time in the published history of the text when it did not.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

So, Zigur, what's your point.

My point is that the Ring probably didn't influence Bilbo to treachery, or at least Professor Tolkien probably didn't mean it that way, because when he came up with that narrative he had not yet conceived of the Ring as a corruptive object which influenced people to do evil things.
Maybe if you treat the narrative as a consistent whole it could be considered, but I'm merely saying that from a certain point of view, external to the narrative, it doesn't seem like we're meant to think that the Ring influenced Bilbo in this way. If you were to read The Hobbit in isolation, for instance, the Ring's influence would not be evident.

EDIT: I was once able to find a page which systematically listed all of the revisions made between the first and later editions of The Hobbit but at present I can't find it...
EDIT 2: It's this page, but it only lists the revisions made to "Riddles in the Dark", which was after all the most substantial place where changes were made. There were other changes as well, but I'm fairly certain the idea of Bilbo giving the Arkenstone to Bard was present from the beginning. I believe the revisions outside of "Riddles in the Dark" were fairly minor.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Are you talking about the "queer look" that Gandalf gives Bilbo in Chapter 5? I think that this may be a revision, but it doesn't change the fact that the material in Chapters 13 to 17 dealing with the Arkenstone does not appear to have been revised, which would show that Professor Tolkien wrote Bilbo's actions that way before he conceived of the Ring as being an evil influence. Maybe in hindsight the Ring could be hypothesised to have had a role, albeit one never stated as such by Professor Tolkien, but there was definitely a time in the published history of the text when it did not.

My point is that the Ring probably didn't influence Bilbo to treachery, or at least Professor Tolkien probably didn't mean it that way, because when he came up with that narrative he had not yet conceived of the Ring as a corruptive object which influenced people to do evil things.
Maybe if you treat the narrative as a consistent whole it could be considered, but I'm merely saying that from a certain point of view, external to the narrative, it doesn't seem like we're meant to think that the Ring influenced Bilbo in this way. If you were to read The Hobbit in isolation, for instance, the Ring's influence would not be evident.

EDIT: I was once able to find a page which systematically listed all of the revisions made between the first and later editions of The Hobbit but at present I can't find it...
EDIT 2: It's this page, but it only lists the revisions made to "Riddles in the Dark", which was after all the most substantial place where changes were made. There were other changes as well, but I'm fairly certain the idea of Bilbo giving the Arkenstone to Bard was present from the beginning. I believe the revisions outside of "Riddles in the Dark" were fairly minor.

No.

“For Isildur would not surrender it to Elrond and Círdan who stood by. They counselled him to cast it into the fire of Orodruin night at hand... But Isildur refused this counsel, saying: 'This I will have as weregild for my father's death, and my brother's. Was it not I that dealt the Enemy his death-blow?' And the Ring that he held seemed to him exceedingly fair to look on; and he would not suffer it to be destroyed.” I don't need to quote citation, I hope.

So - spelling it out, Isildur succumbing immediately. But of course, I can already hear the objection "the Ring was still near Orodruin and recently on Master's hand, and more powerful..." yada yada.

So, then Sméagol's "...birthday present..." and two Holbytlan battling to the death after Deagol finds the Ring.

And, I won't patronise the reader by digging out the quotes from Gandalf, warning that The Ring exerts its influence, immediately upon the user. The Shadow of the Past leaves its imprint. (And no, there's no real indication that the Ring was to be an artefact of lesser perversion because the Hobbit "was published first". Come off it. Prof John had Sauron's big vengeance plan ready to rock for aeons). Nor the dire warning Gandalf implied, when Bilbo spared Gollum, and the comments about "...pity..." staying Bilbo's hand, which perhaps explained the slower perversion of Bilbo.

Then there was that Bilbo wore the thing for a very long time in Thranduil's halls.

Is that not enough, yet for you Zigur? Or have I somehow missed something in the mythology?

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

And no, there's no real indication that the Ring was to be an artefact of lesser perversion because the Hobbit "was published first". Come off it.

Literally all I'm saying is that The Hobbit, including the parts about the Arkenstone etc, were written before Professor Tolkien had conceived of the idea that the Ring corrupted people.

He did not invent this idea until after he had written The Hobbit.

Prof John had Sauron's big vengeance plan ready to rock for aeons

As far as I am aware, this is not the case. Until he began drafting and planning what became The Lord of the Rings, which was after The Hobbit was initially published, Professor Tolkien had only narrated what happened after the First Age as far as Númenor was concerned.

This did involve Sauron surviving and being a character in the narrative of Númenor, but the corresponding events in Middle-earth at the same time, especially the forging of the Rings of Power, had simply not been invented yet, and were not invented until it came to drafting The Lord of the Rings. When The Hobbit was written, Professor Tolkien did not imagine that the Ring was Sauron's Ring or that it was an evil object that influenced its bearer. He had not invented those parts of the story yet.

The drafts and notes published by Christopher Tolkien in The Return of the Shadow show this, I believe.

This is all I am trying to say.

EDIT: I am not doubting that the Ring influenced people to do evil/dubious things - of course not - just trying to suggest that it probably wasn't what Professor Tolkien had in mind when he was writing The Hobbit.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Literally all I'm saying is that The Hobbit, including the parts about the Arkenstone etc, were written before Professor Tolkien had conceived of the idea that the Ring corrupted people.

He did not invent this idea until after he had written The Hobbit.

I can't see how that can be the case. Do you have citations, because they'd be interesting to look at. Can you post them please.

My response:

Glaurung.....Smaug.....Sauron.....
Erebor.....Dwarves....Balrog.....First Age. He wrote First Age notes well ahead of the Hobbit. Why does 1927 come to mind?

as Númenor was concerned.

This did involve Sauron surviving and being a character in the narrative of Númenor, but the corresponding events in Middle-earth at the same time, especially the forging of the Rings of Power, had simply not been invented yet, and were no invented until it came to drafting The Lord of the Rings.....

When The Hobbit was written, Professor Tolkien did not imagine that the Ring was Sauron's Ring or that it was an evil object that influenced its bearer. He had not invented those parts of the story yet.

he was writing The Hobbit[/I].

Don't buy it. Mr Bad Boi Sauron (Annatar was bit hot, I'd have imagined, and would have roused a bit of Noldor death-lust, I'm sure). I'm sure JRRT would have had Sméagol/Gollum in his fore as he put the Hobbit together in the 30's, some nine or so years after his pouring out of First Age Notes, and only a year before The Lord of the Rings was titled as the sequel....

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

I can't see how that can be the case.

Well, I'm sorry, but it is.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Do you have citations, because they'd be interesting to look at. Can you post them please.

Everything relevant is in The Return of the Shadow. I will post a couple of things, but looking further is up to you. It is an extensive text.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

He wrote First Age notes well ahead of the Hobbit.

He wrote "Quenta Silmarillion" before The Hobbit, yes. I am not denying this.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Don't buy it.

I'm sorry, but really? "Don't buy it"?!? Your flat refusal to even consider that what I'm saying might be true makes me question the purpose of doing this.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Mr Bad Boi Sauron (Annatar was bit hot, I'd have imagined, and would have roused a bit of Noldor death-lust, I'm sure). I'm sure JRRT would have had Sméagol/Gollum in his fore as he put the Hobbit together in the 30's, some nine or so years after his pouring out of First Age Notes, and only a year before The Lord of the Rings was titled as the sequel....

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

To quote The Return of the Shadow, in Professor Tolkien's original conception of what became The Lord of the Rings, the Ring did not matter at all. There are four drafts presented before Professor Tolkien even begins considering the Ring as more than a possible "motive" for "Bungo" (the character before Frodo) to go looking for Bilbo, and when he does, he is not even sure if it is related to Sauron:

The Ring: whence its origin. Necromancer? Not very dangerous, when used for good purpose. But it exacts its penalty. You must either lose it, or yourself.

[The Return of the Shadow Part I (v)]
Going into more detail would involve quoting huge quantities of The Return of the Shadow. Reading the Histories of Middle-earth is really invaluable for sorting out the order in which Professor Tolkien invented these various elements.

The Treason of Isengard even shows that at one point Professor Tolkien imagined that the Rings of Power (other than Sauron's, admittedly) had been made in Valinor by Fëanor in the First Age:

In those days the Rings of Power were made. It is said that they were fashioned first by Feanor the greatest of all the makers among the Elves of the West, whose skill surpassed that of all folk that are or have been.

The history of the Second Age didn't exist at all at this point, and Professor Tolkien did not yet have a firm idea of what happened. These are all musings which occurred after The Hobbit was initially published, incidentally.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Well, I'm sorry, but it is.

I'm good at conceding a point, Zigur, when there is cause to. I have an ego, like all humans, but it embarrasses me more to fail to yield ground and I find it embarrassing when others don't. I find that it is an adult skill to tolerate some argy-bargy and to enjoy debate. But, I'd like to see you ground your point in some materials, please, especially since you asserted that The Ring doesn't act immediately, and that The Ring was not part of Prof's thinking/notes at Hobbit time.

Please do explain this more, but with materials please.

Everything relevant is in The Return of the Shadow. I will post a couple of things, but looking further is up to you. It is an extensive text/

.

Yes, I know. That's my point, so please let's have a look at what it is I seemed to have missed, that inspired you to cross-post over my comments.

Let's start with a shorter post. They get too long and too many points (of that I am often guilty). Let's take your two assertions as I've summarised them.

[Ivriniel]

I'm going to bed now, and will no doubt, find materials here am. Take your time. Again, 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.

Please give consideration to my upstream materials as well. Especially those with dates of publications, and titles:

The Lord of the Rings - the TITLE but ONE YEAR behind the Hobbit's release in the 30's. "Lord".....who - if not Sauron - who did he have in mind?

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

Cheers

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

you asserted that The Ring doesn't act immediately

I do not believe I said this and am not debating it. I am merely saying that Professor Tolkien did not think the Ring was evil when he wrote The Hobbit.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

The Ring was not part of Prof's thinking/notes at Hobbit time.

Please do explain this more, but with materials please.

I have given you quotes from The Return of the Shadow to show that he only came up with these ideas later. They may have been a short time later, but they were later.

I don't know what else to say. Remarks about being "embarrassed for" me are not appreciated. I have given you quotes from The Return of the Shadow and The Treason of Isengard to prove my point and you seem to have simply ignored them. In these posts you repeatedly claim that I haven't given you evidence when I have!

I also note that you have not provided evidence to support your claim that Professor Tolkien did already have these things in mind, which seems to make it rather moot.

And no I don't think Sauron had some kind of liaison with any of the Gwaith-i-Mírdain. I do not perceive "Annatar" as a sexually attractive figure, although I realise many do; personally I believe that his "fairness" was an impression of supreme majesty, wisdom and intellect that he gave those who saw him - perhaps excessively so, hence the mistrust this fostered in Gil-galad, Elrond and Galadriel.