![]() |
|
|
|
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
|
#18 | |||
|
Blossom of Dwimordene
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The realm of forgotten words
Posts: 10,515
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The only aspect of the Ring I can sense behind Bilbo's decision is invisibility. It's a tool without which it would have been much more difficult for Bilbo to succeed in his plan. Would this plan, or a variation of thereof to account for lack of invisibility, have existed had the Ring not been there? I think so, because that's what Bilbo would do. Did Bilbo have an attachment to the Ring? Perhaps or perhaps not. I really can't see why it matters, and if you think it does, then please explain the merits of your idea that attachment and dependence on the Ring was a main factor in pushing Bilbo to give the Arkenstone to Bard and the Elven King. You're the one who's making the claim; the evidence is first and foremost your responsibility. And, yes, you need to do some convincing before I will see your side of the issue. I picture Gollum, a character who we all can agree is dependent on the Ring. What would he do in a similar situation? "Friendses, they said. Liars, and cheats! We have done our job, yesss.... They are treacherous, my precious, but we are good. Let those false friendses die in battle, and we will sit snuggly here and get more reward. Yes!" This is one of the several possible scenarios that came to my mind. But one scenario that I don't see happening is Gollum betraying a friend's trust for the benefit of the friend, not for his own gain or Ring-lust. So please explain why it would matter so much in this situation that Bilbo was already attached to the Ring. Once you establish this connection, we can debate the extent of such attachment. Then make a thread about it. Stop throwing out irrelevant ideas.
__________________
You passed from under darkened dome, you enter now the secret land. - Take me to Finrod's fabled home!... ~ Finrod: The Rock Opera |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|