Bilbo´s treachery

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Actually, this post presumes authority in quite a different way. It presumes that the extant texts, published as is, do not have citations of worth.

I think you'll find materials in post with -- references -- not direct citations to position an argument. I don't think there is a singular capacity for anyone to presume correctness on any given topic

Certainly not on this topic, where, it is quite clear that the author's materials evolved as he wrote, in such a liquid fashion that pinning down a simple topic with a 'one size fits all' argument speaks more to the need of the poster, rather than the reality.

I'm afraid that after about 30 years of consideration to canon and other material I've grown increasingly diverse in sense of options for argument. Which is why I'm suspicious of posts that presume 'correctness'. It's more about a need of order in one's mind and to slot things away in a known set of parameters.

There's no such thing in Tolkien's works. He was evolving ideas to the day he died.

Once again, your strained supposition does not include direct citation or any documentation to support your points, and rather than trying to defend your untenable position you've wasted a few paragraphs worrying about other posters' tone, and rambling about Tolkien's fluidity. Tolkien was indeed fluid, but in this case we know where, why and when he changed the story.

Given the information William already provided regarding how and when Tolkien published material regarding the One Ring, coupled with the fact that Tolkien had to dramatically change aspects of The Hobbit after the first edition to align with the new malignancy of the Ring, leaves you with nothing but obstinacy in maintaining your position.

I have a first edition of The Hobbit. Have you read it? Gollum is not nearly the miserable, despicable fellow he is in revised editions. As I stated previously, Gollum has every intention of giving his "present" to Bilbo when he wins the riddle game. Gollum even leads Bilbo out of the tunnel -- a thing wholly inexplicable if Tolkien considers the magic ring to be the One Ring. Tolkien had to change the very nature of Gollum, as he had with the Ring, in order to make the old story fit the "sequel". Gollum even apologizes when he discovers he lost the ring (in Bilbo's possession), which would be quite ridiculous if Tolkien had considered the corrosive effects of the One Ring prior to writing LotR:

I don't know how many times Gollum begged Bilbo's pardon. He kept on saying: "We are ssorry; we didn't mean to cheat, we meant to give it our only only pressent, if it won the competition." He even offered to catch Bilbo some nice juicy fish to eat as a consolation.

Not only does he change Gollum, but Bilbo is essentially changed. Bilbo goes from winning the magic ring outright, and thereby possessing it with full entitlement, to keeping it by stealth, as the One Ring was no longer a stake in the riddle game, and, as rewritten, the murderous Gollum would never relinquish or offer up his Precious, the One Ring that warped and tortured him for centuries.

Your argument does not logically follow the sequence of events, nor does it take into account the actual revisions required to make the changes necessary for The Hobbit to align with LotR as noted by Christopher Tolkien in "The Return of the Shadow" (History of Middle-earth VI), or in the two-volume The History of The Hobbit by John Rateliff.

Any further tedious exposition without something more than your opinion will be ignored.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Once again, your strained supposition does not include direct citation or any documentation to support your points, and rather than trying to defend your untenable position you've wasted a few paragraphs worrying about other posters' tone, and rambling about Tolkien's fluidity. Tolkien was indeed fluid, but in this case we know where, why and when he changed the story.

so what. what's ur point? what, that 30 reads of the mythology doesn't leave an impression or capacity to comment.

Please refrain. Have a look upstream. If you want me to hunt down citations, I will, but first of all, have a look at the arguments I've presented please, then ask for something after that.

Thanx

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

so what. what's ur point? what, that 30 reads of the mythology doesn't leave an impression or capacity to comment.

Please refrain. Have a look upstream. If you want me to hunt down citations, I will, but first of all, have a look at the arguments I've presented please, then ask for something after that.

Thanx

What's my point? You are wrong, and I say so without hesitation.

Your "30 reads" evidently didn't encompass C. Tolkien's History of Middle-earth or John Rateliff's The History of The Hobbit, where J.R.R. Tolkien's writings and revisions are given chronological perspective in a scholarly context. You can give the books another "30 reads" and it will not avail you when it comes to the context and chronology of why and when Tolkien wrote what he did. You can guess, you can surmise, but when presented with copious documentation that proves otherwise, it's time to pack in your guesses and admit you are wrong.

Oh, and I did paddle the turgid straits and navigated the frothy rapids upstream and found nothing you stated was germane to the discussion from a factual basis. Nothing you said was more than opinion devoid of background or research.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

What's my point? You are wrong, and I say so without hesitation.

Your "30 reads" evidently didn't encompass C. Tolkien's History of Middle-earth or John Rateliff's The History of The Hobbit, where J.R.R. Tolkien's writings and revisions are given chronological perspective in a scholarly context. You can give the books another "30 reads" and it will not avail you when it comes to the context and chronology of why and when Tolkien wrote what he did. You can guess, you can surmise, but when presented with copious documentation that proves otherwise, it's time to pack in your guesses and admit you are wrong.

Oh, and I did paddle the turgid straits and navigated the frothy rapids upstream and found nothing you stated was germane to the discussion from a factual basis. Nothing you said was more than opinion devoid of background or research.

I was looking forwards to your response. I'm grinning. I never fail to be 'impressed' by variations in ......Shelob.....um, now the grin's growing into an....hm...Yrch-ish grin, nah, um, more just a fun grin as I type and speak out loud my response.

You see.....Shelob was ....um....Ung......no, I must refrain. Ungoliant is reserved for 'emergencies'. I don't think we're at that point yet. I think we're at the point where the point is that point of the prior poster...hahahaha. really just needs to be ...as full of snipes as ...um....hahahaha is 'polite', yet as full of gripes as is 'impolite' and as...Galadriel was UNfriends forever with, wasn't it Feanor....

So, that's about as much as needs to be added to the point about your point that no prior point matters to any degree of point, except to be pointy, perhaps barbed hahaha, but no extra POINT to the points.

enjoy - I'm laughing - are we at Ungoliant yet?

[Ivriniel]

@Morthogon, or -oron, on something

and - there's textual analysis provided. Indications of dates of published texts I've provided, in a timeline pre-WWII, together with commentary about The Silmarillian's earlier notes (1927 I think he began. Forgive me if I just don't give a rat's rear end about the exact date - because it's not that important really, when we look on the TV and see the world around us. Try to enjoy urself and have some fun). In any case, then there was a concession made, to another poster a '36' '37' (or something about that range hahaha), betWIXT the Hobbit and LotR.

And those additions part of a larger schema of 'vibe-ish' (I'm actually laughing as I type) analysis. And my closing point.

The prof T was making addendums to his narratives to the day he died. There's no such thing as 'he wrote it on the second minute of the 3rd day of nineteen hundred and 28 ergo - canonised forever as 'the truth, the proof and the justification to get.....snipy.... about dates). As we know of the materials, each chapter he wrote forwards, he was back-revising as well.

So, about 'treacheries' Hobbits and LotR's, I believe the central point being made has been made. We've all made the point we've made. The made points are made to be made and made. Not UNmade - and that's a joke about what JRRT used to do as a linguist.

He UN-ed a lot of things, and sometimes it was just very funny. As in 'verily so', and UNlight, UNfriend, UNmake - three examples. hahaha, wait, omg, I wandered into new turf - I wonder why

Cheers

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

I was looking forwards to your response. I'm grinning. I never fail to be 'impressed' by variations in ......Shelob.....um, now the grin's growing into an....hm...Yrch-ish grin, nah, um, more just a fun grin as I type and speak out loud my response.

You see.....Shelob was ....um....Ung......no, I must refrain. Ungoliant is reserved for 'emergencies'. I don't think we're at that point yet. I think we're at the point where the point is that point of the prior poster...hahahaha. really just needs to be ...as full of snipes as ...um....hahahaha is 'polite', yet as full of gripes as is 'impolite' and as...Galadriel was UNfriends forever with, wasn't it Feanor....

So, that's about as much as needs to be added to the point about your point that no prior point matters to any degree of point, except to be pointy, perhaps barbed hahaha, but no extra POINT to the points.

enjoy - I'm laughing - are we at Ungoliant yet?

You may well think the gibberish you are typing is cute or witty, but it is just gibberish. You have often resorted to gibberish in this thread when another poster proves a point through research. It must be some sort of psychologically regressive fallback. Like when a child sucks its thumb.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

The prof T was making addendums to his narratives to the day he died. There's no such thing as 'he wrote it on the second minute of the 3rd day of nineteen hundred and 28 ergo - canonised forever as 'the truth, the proof and the justification to get.....snipy.... about dates). As we know of the materials, each chapter he wrote forwards, he was back-revising as well.

So, about 'treacheries' Hobbits and LotR's, I believe the central point being made has been made. We've all made the point we've made. The made points are made to be made and made. Not UNmade - and that's a joke about what JRRT used to do as a linguist.

We are all aware Tolkien made changes to his stories. He was an inveterate tinkerer. However, he was not writing about Hobbits in 1918, he was not referring to Sauron as Thû in 1965, and the idea of the corruptive One Ring became a plot point while he was writing Lord of the Rings, after The Hobbit was published and selling. In fact, the very addendums you rabbit on about occurred with The Hobbit -- it had to be revised to meet the ideas created in the new book, the idea of the One Ring had to be established through Gollum, because it wasn't there before.

Because the One Ring wasn't there before, because it was a new idea (writers sometimes get them). Like Aragorn wasn't there before. Or Théoden. Or the Second Age. Or Primula Brandybuck. Or the Nazgul.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

You may well think the gibberish you are typing is cute or witty, but it is just gibberish. You have often resorted to gibberish in this thread when another poster proves a point through research. It must be some sort of psychologically regressive fallback. Like when a child sucks its thumb.



We are all aware Tolkien made changes to his stories. He was an inveterate tinkerer. However, he was not writing about Hobbits in 1918, he was not referring to Sauron as Thû in 1965, and the idea of the corruptive One Ring became a plot point while he was writing Lord of the Rings, after The Hobbit was published and selling. In fact, the very addendums you rabbit on about occurred with The Hobbit -- it had to be revised to meet the ideas created in the new book, the idea of the One Ring had to be established through Gollum, because it wasn't there before.

Because the One Ring wasn't there before, because it was a new idea (writers sometimes get them). Like Aragorn wasn't there before. Or Théoden. Or the Second Age. Or Primula Brandybuck. Or the Nazgul.

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

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

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

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

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

Where exactly are you moving on to?

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