Bilbo´s treachery

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

....Why? Because the change in role and importance the ring underwent between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, becoming The One Ring, is retroactive within the fictional universe. Once the ring 'turned out' to be the One Ring it always was the One Ring, and the story in the First Edition where Gollum was ready to give Bilbo the ring willingly becomes a figment of Bilbo's desire to make himself look better and affirm his right to the ring....

Once again, it's clear and has been amply demonstrated that this isn't what Tolkien intended at the time of writing TH. Whether this is a problem depends on whether you hold auctorial intention to be more important than a text's power to acquire and generate new meanings through its history.

You have hit on what made Tolkien the writer he was. Tolkien was the one of the greatest synthesizers the literary world has ever known. He wrote The Hobbit showing an inkling of distant previous eras, and these eras were already well-developed in his 1st Age tales and lays which would eventually be made into The Silmarillion. The antecedent Silmarillion works synthesized Biblical, Welsh, Greek and Finnish works or languages, just as The Hobbit borrowed from Beowulf and the Voluspa.

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.

Tolkien's genius is borrowing and embellishing, In Lord of the Rings he was masterful with the synthesis and the imagination to connect the dots.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

You have hit on what made Tolkien the writer he was. Tolkien was the one of the greatest synthesizers the literary world has ever known. He wrote The Hobbit showing an inkling of distant previous eras, and these eras were already well-developed in his 1st Age tales and lays which would eventually be made into The Silmarillion. The antecedent Silmarillion works synthesized Biblical, Welsh, Greek and Finnish works or languages, just as The Hobbit borrowed from Beowulf and the Voluspa.

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.

Tolkien's genius is borrowing and embellishing, In Lord of the Rings he was masterful with the synthesis and the imagination to connect the dots.

This is inaccurate actually.

I will find the supporting materials that direct us to attend to what was a multi-decade literary works, with antecedent (I used to pronounce it wrong, but as my second PhD supervisor and who pointed out, in delight, said to me "you can't say it that way, Stavros, in front of a crowd". Of course, I giggled, because having a sense of humour at 49 helps) notes about The First Age written as early as 1927, I think. I seem to recall (and it has been a long time since I reviewed my records, so forgive me for being diffuse about dates, but I shall find the materials in my library) that Post WWI the Prof began his literary 'synthesis'* in notes.

The materials about the greater literary foundation, mythology, narrative context, and ***Lore*** (have I missed something) were rejected by Allen and Unwin, and he was pressed to write the more palatable variation of his works for a 'one book to hit the shelves' item - the Hobbit. Given such as large well of Lore in the notes, I find it difficult to conclude that the 'dumbed down' Lore in The Hobbit was not 'dumbed down' a-purpose, in order to satisfy publicists. As we all know, editors and publicists are very often guilty of excisions, directives, and pushes upon authors to distort literary purpose.

As was pointed out to me on this thread, it seems LotR was about one year (in formation of title and narrative) behind the ***publication*** of the Hobbit.

I wonder what that means, given my comments here in this post.

[edit]*I do not refer to the works as a synthesis, per se. The term, although adaptable as you've used it, I divert from. Because, (and I know you can't start a sentence with 'because' ordinarily, I'm relaxing language boundaries, for having written 20,000 words a week for the last 20 years, and so, I like mangling language up a bit) synthesis as you've used the term, implies -- perhaps -- conscious attendance to the theological, anthropological and other aspects of our modern world.

He was not a theologian, nor an anthropologist, nor was the professorial title for those.

He was a linguist or English master or etymologist, primarily. As such, if there is a 'synthesis', I would suggest it was 'implicit' or not-grounded in the level of mastery of vocabulary attendant to Professorial status for anthropology, and theology. He fervently denies allegorical reference in his works, as I'm hoping everyone knows. This supposition has been hotly debated, over the decades. It so then seems to me that aggrandising a Loremaster such as the prof on terms applied, Morthoron, {although he was Christian and did, indeed, 'synthesise' tacitly from theology} is a beguiling argumentative style, adapting vocabulary for its own sake and extending boundaries of inference past a reasonable point.

This is only counter argumentation. And I really don't do it so much like this on these Boards.

I prefer Ungoliantisations, Un-Undoings, Re-Unfriendings, And Unlighterisations. They're more fun, really.[/quote]

[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 Ivriniel

This is inaccurate actually.

No, it is quite accurate, actually.

I had stated that I wouldn't post on this thread further, but the following bit of insouciant peregrination into the outlandish misses the 'crux of the biscuit' (if I may quote the learned sage F. Vincent Zappa). I have been annoyed about it the entire time, and only now have found time to rebut it.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

*I do not refer to the works as a synthesis, per se. The term, although adaptable as you've used it, I divert from. Because, (and I know you can't start a sentence with 'because' ordinarily, I'm relaxing language boundaries, for having written 20,000 words a week for the last 20 years, and so, I like mangling language up a bit) synthesis as you've used the term, implies -- perhaps -- conscious attendance to the theological, anthropological and other aspects of our modern world.

He was not a theologian, nor an anthropologist, nor was the professorial title for those.

He was a linguist or English master or etymologist, primarily. As such, if there is a 'synthesis', I would suggest it was 'implicit' or not-grounded in the level of mastery of vocabulary attendant to Professorial status for anthropology, and theology. He fervently denies allegorical reference in his works, as I'm hoping everyone knows. This supposition has been hotly debated, over the decades. It so then seems to me that aggrandising a Loremaster such as the prof on terms applied, Morthoron, {although he was Christian and did, indeed, 'synthesise' tacitly from theology} is a beguiling argumentative style, adapting vocabulary for its own sake and extending boundaries of inference past a reasonable point.

I flatly reject your assertion that Tolkien should be limited to being simply a tinker of words, merely a linguist without the philological and philosophical underpinnings to create a theological and anthropological matrix in his subcreative world (or better, a synthesis).

He owned at certain periods the titles of Rawlinson and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon and Merton Professor of English Language and Literature at Oxford. If we were to simply stop there and ignore his life and studies in context, then perhaps there would be a foundation for his being just a wordsmith. Obviously, his first job was on the staff of the Oxford English Dictionary and his superb lexicographic skills were noted by his senior editors. That Tolkien never used a word that wasn't etymologically apt in its placement (for instance, eschewing words of French derivation when dealing with Anglo-Saxon material in his work) cannot be understated...or marveled at for the length and breadth of their consistency -- even in the dogged insistence of editing out words that weren't proper in context or were anachronistic in their placement.

However, when one makes the baldly absurd statement that because Tolkien had a professorial title to one thing, it precluded a master's knowledge in another thing, it must be pointed out and given a derisive chortle. I emphasized the statement previously, but let me print it again:

He was not a theologian, nor an anthropologist, nor was the professorial title for those.

I would suggest, for instance, that Tolkien's expertise and study of theology would embarrass most degreed theologians (as if having the doctorate title makes one eminent). Tolkien is an internationally recognized Christian and Catholic scholar and one of the most profound Christian thinkers of the 20th century.

Here is a man with an intimate knowledge of Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy and who could read and interpret it in the original Late Latin (just as he read and interpreted Anglo-Saxon Christian poems and Middle-English Christian allegories in their original tongue - name some theologians who can do that), and who used Boethian concepts in his works (see Shippey for further information), as well as integrating Neoplatonic, Augustinian and, it can be argued, even applying syncretistic concepts like Manicheism and paganistic themes (from Norse and Greek myth and the fatalistic Kalevala) in his philosophical stew (again, a synthesizer of the highest magnitude).

This interpolation and synthesis of seemingly contradictory theological precepts was brilliantly illuminated by Tolkien in his landmark lecture "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics" (revered by critics as one of the most important pieces on the poem), wherein he embraced the marriage of Northern pagan virtues and Christian theology in Beowulf as invigorating of spirit, and which acted as a template for his integration of pagan and Christian motifs that built the cosmology and mythos of Middle-earth. And one can easily see Beowulf in the Elves suffering the "long defeat" with stoic bravery against incalculable odds, in that fate and doom play their parts as does the Christian inevitability of mortality as Tolkien states, "the wages of heroism is death".

And what did you think the Inklings talked about during their meetings, the score of the latest Lord's Cambridge v. Oxford cricket match? No, here we have a cadre of Christian thinkers unmatched for its time: C.S. Lewis the great Christian apologist (who, of course, was converted by Tolkien himself -- how do you think Tolkien had the ability to turn such a great mind as Lewis, if not for theological acumen?); Owen Barfield the anthroposophist; the theologian and writer Charles Williams; and Adam Fox, Dean of Divinity at Magdalen College, Oxford. Not only did Tolkien fit in here from just a literary standpoint, I would state his theological expertise warranted the inclusion.

I would continue, but my daughter reminds me we have Christmas shopping to do. I may or may not follow up.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

*u spelt spectER wrong, wait, so did I

No, I did not. As an American, the spelling is indeed s-p-e-c-t-e-r. The British spelling is spectre. I also do not spell theater as t-h-e-a-t-r-e, or aluminum as a-l-u-m-i-n-i-u-m.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

No, it is quite accurate, actually.

I had stated that I wouldn't post on this thread further, but the following bit of insouciant peregrination into the outlandish misses the 'crux of the biscuit' (if I may quote the learned sage F. Vincent Zappa). I have been annoyed about it the entire time, and only now have found time to rebut it.



I flatly reject your assertion that Tolkien should be limited to being simply a tinker of words, merely a linguist without the philological and philosophical underpinnings to create a theological and anthropological matrix in his subcreative world (or better, a synthesis).

He owned at certain periods the titles of Rawlinson and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon and Merton Professor of English Language and Literature at Oxford. If we were to simply stop there and ignore his life and studies in context, then perhaps there would be a foundation for his being just a wordsmith. Obviously, his first job was on the staff of the Oxford English Dictionary and his superb lexicographic skills were noted by his senior editors. That Tolkien never used a word that wasn't etymologically apt in its placement (for instance, eschewing words of French derivation when dealing with Anglo-Saxon material in his work) cannot be understated...or marveled at for the length and breadth of their consistency -- even in the dogged insistence of editing out words that weren't proper in context or were anachronistic in their placement.

However, when one makes the baldly absurd statement that because Tolkien had a professorial title to one thing, it precluded a master's knowledge in another thing, it must be pointed out and given a derisive chortle. I emphasized the statement previously, but let me print it again:

He was not a theologian, nor an anthropologist, nor was the professorial title for those.

I would suggest, for instance, that Tolkien's expertise and study of theology would embarrass most degreed theologians (as if having the doctorate title makes one eminent). Tolkien is an internationally recognized Christian and Catholic scholar and one of the most profound Christian thinkers of the 20th century.

Here is a man with an intimate knowledge of Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy and who could read and interpret it in the original Late Latin (just as he read and interpreted Anglo-Saxon Christian poems and Middle-English Christian allegories in their original tongue - name some theologians who can do that), and who used Boethian concepts in his works (see Shippey for further information), as well as integrating Neoplatonic, Augustinian and, it can be argued, even applying syncretistic concepts like Manicheism and paganistic themes (from Norse and Greek myth and the fatalistic Kalevala) in his philosophical stew (again, a synthesizer of the highest magnitude).

This interpolation and synthesis of seemingly contradictory theological precepts was brilliantly illuminated by Tolkien in his landmark lecture "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics" (revered by critics as one of the most important pieces on the poem), wherein he embraced the marriage of Northern pagan virtues and Christian theology in Beowulf as invigorating of spirit, and which acted as a template for his integration of pagan and Christian motifs that built the cosmology and mythos of Middle-earth. And one can easily see Beowulf in the Elves suffering the "long defeat" with stoic bravery against incalculable odds, in that fate and doom play their parts as does the Christian inevitability of mortality as Tolkien states, "the wages of heroism is death".

And what did you think the Inklings talked about during their meetings, the score of the latest Lord's Cambridge v. Oxford cricket match? No, here we have a cadre of Christian thinkers unmatched for its time: C.S. Lewis the great Christian apologist (who, of course, was converted by Tolkien himself -- how do you think Tolkien had the ability to turn such a great mind as Lewis, if not for theological acumen?); Owen Barfield the anthroposophist; the theologian and writer Charles Williams; and Adam Fox, Dean of Divinity at Magdalen College, Oxford. Not only did Tolkien fit in here from just a literary standpoint, I would state his theological expertise warranted the inclusion.

I would continue, but my daughter reminds me we have Christmas shopping to do. I may or may not follow up.



No, I did not. As an American, the spelling is indeed s-p-e-c-t-e-r. The British spelling is spectre. I also do not spell theater as t-h-e-a-t-r-e, or aluminum as a-l-u-m-i-n-i-u-m.

It is great to see you back Morth! I just logged in, before I head out to my family's home for Xmas soon.

I'll be back to respond to your -- delicious..gol..ious message. I hope you've been well and merry xmas to you. See you soon.


[edit]I'm laughing uncontrollably again - as I read your most excellent materials!!!! Especially the first few sentences[/edit]

[Ivriniel]

@Mor_thoron,

I'm not sure that 'insouciant peregrination' of Frank Zappa's needlecraft in migrating Silmarils best captures Tolkien's degree of religious expertise in his impregnations of his mythology with, perturbingly -divisible- spectral ordinations strewn throughout the cosmology. I would rather instead, compare......Buck's Fizz.....to Abba rather than ....Frank Zappa to ......needlecraft of Balrogs.

For example, theological or anthropological analysis of the last 2000 years doesn't explain how the Arkenstone became (causation direction deliberate) a Silmaril.

As you said Morth, "concision, Ivriniel is not thy name" which of course elicits regular laughter and is becoming a staple in my friendship circles. Everyone who knows me knows I gave all my educators 'headaches' due to breaches of word lengths....

So, I would concede that the professor was etymologically advanced, linguistically gifted, and certainly a wordsmith, and theologically--oriented, and anthropologically - somewhat - oriented. It would be impossible to be otherwise inclined after decades of exposure to the academic environment.

Yet, in my lack of concision....and woolly....felicitations? or semi-abstract, denominations, um or erm, what I mean is, florid vocabulary in incisively precise linguistic focus (wait, the sentence is really not making sense )deters us from the fulcrum or reasoned woman's positioning of Tolkien's denominational abstractions. In sum, he was Christian, and wrote with Christian emphases, not really more. There are no real elucidations in his mythology of the diverse spectrum of liturgical positions taken by theologians about religiosity. Nor was there really anything more than mundane meanderings in any spiritual derivations he presented. I saw no exegeses, nor any of the tools of methodological -- precision -- permitted to theologians of advanced academic heritage.

Bilbo's Migrating Personality Over the Course of the Hobbit

Invisibility in the social contract of the Anglo Saxon social mind is anathema to honesty. Eave's dropping, voyeurism and in our modern world -- spy cams -- undeclared evoke spectREs of serious violation of the social contract and are prosecutable offences.

This basic facility of the civilised mind--where affectations of vanity and god complexes are not the guiding premises of interactions--is the grounding of what has and should be the defining feature of any ring or Ring or trinket imbuing invisibility. The perspective-taking task that elicits the -- vanity -- implicit or hidden in the seduction of the reader into accepting the ring as benevolent requires us to simply imagine having a friend who we discovered had 'visited the home' with their ring on, or 'been in the background' whilst having a private conversation, or worse -- stalked -- us unbeknownst to us.

I recall at my first read of the Hobbit (Ed, version year 3255, AD, ie the 'one handy', which has a lovely picture on the cover of Tolkien's Esgaroth/Barrels and Bilbo afloat) initially having a raised eyebrow at the stealth, creepily, secrecy of Bilbo and the -- obvious -- extended delay of his confession to his apparent 'close pals' of some months.

This serious lapse in morality would not have been lost on the professor, whose life in the University system would have been vexed by 'Romulan' stealth and Tal Shiar Machiavellianism. As a staunch Christian, the notion of an invisible stealthy creature creeping around his Parish would have been of course another serious and obvious moral violation of the then Anglo Saxon social 'contract'. His literary mastery and methodological tools of analysis and an English Professor, no doubt would have been preternatural preoccupations enabling him to fathom conceit, vanity, and deviation of moral fortitude in Bilbo's -- growing -- tendency to -- rationalise, minimise, justify and validate really very dubious moral escapades by the time the Battle of the Five Armies ensued.

Here this analytical premise is supported by explicit concepts apparent in the prose. For example, during Bilbo's longest period wearing the ring in Thranduil's halls, the text reads that "for something to do, he took to wandering the Elvenking's palace". I see - 'for something to do', I know, I'll 'put on my ring and head down town to, um, lets see, the Department of Justice, or um, perhaps the presidential suits, and roam around, while the various senators ready themselves for work in the morning, perhaps during their ablutions or vacating bowels, and, I know, 'just listen in' to any of the equivalent to the "Elven King's" counsels, such as a President or Prime Minister's morning chats to his family and romantic partner. Of course, no one will blink an eye when Mr Bilbo Baggins pops off his ring (or Ring) to decry 'good morning, hope this doesn't startle'. By the way, did you hear, Albatross migratory patterns now included provision for heat resistant feathers, which permit subterranean flights through lava conduits!

Then there's this "Eventually after a week or two of this sneaking sort of life" and he was "....lurking there...", in his lazily attenuated new life, where "listening to Elven guards" without their knowing, was not a bother to his conscience at all!

There goes Mr 'Moral fortitude' traipsing about in Elven Halls, thenCe off he goes, and grabs the Arkenstone (weeks ahead of the presence of the Elves and Bard, and God only knows what other stealthy, disturbingly cunning plots Mr 'Clean living Baggins' was keeping in store!

The competing......thesis....(hahahaha, okay, I'm overdoing lack of ......concision, Ivriniel (*points to Morth* hahaha) erm, um, theory, is that the author seduced the reader into minimising the gravity of the impact of the little old, small r, ring upon an owner's moral -- DECAY. It has to be inevitable that invisibility has these impacts.

"Bilbo,of course, disapproved of the whole turnoff affairs. He had by now had more than enough of the mountains, and being besieged inside was not at all to his taste"

And there you have it. The so called 'bonding of love' of Bilbo in ardour and valour of a year or so, reduced to trite boredom and he was done with the stench of dragon, bored of cram, and little bothered at all to -- hog -- the Arkenstone, rather than feasibly do a manly (Hobbit version) thing and confront openly before the world what his reason, haste, task and mission was, as he then popped on his ring (still this is creepy I read, but a little better).

Bottom line. Ungoliant ate the Silmaril morth. As I said, it's hidden in the subext. Beren didn't find it, at all, and there were only two at the end of the First Age hahahaha.

Ie. it's a fun - analysis - Devil's advocate, and yet holds some grounds. I could at this point extend the analysis into a precursor for a -- thesis -- likening for example, the features of boredom, lack of bonding, and amorality of sociopathy and its impetus to make people do rather seriously bad behaviour, like 'steal a prised jewel - such as Queen Elizabeth's Sceptre" by stealth, "because Bilbo was bored and over the Dwarves". Ie, Biblo dons his ring (it's almost a Ring by this point) and stalks the British monarch's (liken this to 'Elven King's halls) halls until he gets his moment and then runs off with the crown jewels.

How beguiled have you been that this post, several hundred in and these juxtapositions it took to highlight Mr Not-So-Innocent-Baggins growing attachment to stealth by invisibility. At the start of the narrative, to term him a 'Burglar' was antithetical to the reader's ideas about morality, but so numbed are we by the Battle of the Five armies that stealth, stealing, invisible marauding of the Dwarves by the evil Bilbo is not even noticed!

I do indeed see the spectRe of sociopathy as a pall falling upon Bilbo's character by the end of the Hobbit.

[Boromir88]

I don't think Bilbo's motivations to take the Arkenstone and sneak it out to Bard was driven by the Ring. The Ring works by delusions of supreme power, by possessing it and using it. Boromir wants to take the Ring and use it to command armies against Sauron. Sam's temptation is to use it's power against Sauron and grow an extravagant garden in Mordor. Gollum's temptation is to keep it for himself and dine on the finest fish forever. The Ring works by tempting the bearer with a delusion of "claim ownership of me, you can overthrow Sauron and use me to achieve your heart's desires."

Conceptually, the ring in The Hobbit isn't the One Ring in The Lord of the Rings. But even if it was Bilbo's actions to take the Arkenstone were not driven by The Ring. The Ring would not be tempting Bilbo to use the Arkenstone to achieve his desires of reconciliation. It would be tempting Bilbo to use the Ring itself, as the means to achieve his goal. That's how the Ring works to gain a grip on it's bearer.

The original topic has certainly been interesting to ponder...and drag this wight out of his barrow . I haven't read The Hobbit in quite awhile, but it seems to me Bilbo felt forced to take drastic and, in the very least questionable, action in an attempt to be a peacemaker. The result doesn't go as Bilbo planned, but the result doesn't change his intentions. Something you can see in Tolkien is good intentions may lead to unintentional consequences, just as evil intentions may lead to an unexpected positive result. Whatever side you come down on, if you think Bilbo's sneaking and concealing the truth was morally questionable/treacherous (or that he had a legal claim and intentions to bring peace), he's later absolved by Gandalf and then by the person he committed the offense against, Thorin.

Bilbo is by no means perfect, this reminds me of how he concealed the true story of how he got the Ring for many years. However, Bilbo concealing the full truth is so very minor, it's silly to condemn him, or act as if he's committed some great injustice. When confronted with the fact Bilbo hasn't been completely honest, he comes clean, and that's more telling of Bilbo's character than trying to conceal the truth because he's too embarrassed at the time.

[Ivriniel]

I'm not exactly sure we get an exact definition of 'what' the Ring does to character and what character traits are varied. I understood that appeals to domination and control were a part of the transition. I see appeals to greed, themes of seduction, to self-serving behaviour, and also lust of sadism implicit in the transition. I'd add increased tendency for objectification, and for callous lack of empathy. If I had to draw on modern day conceptions, I'd be looking at psychopathy/sociopathy for assistance to clarify how the Ring exerted influence.

The explicit themes in the Hobbit did highlight Bilbo's philanthropic/benevolent motivations (war stopping). There are difficulties with that. There are several tacit themes in the book that don't square with the explicit prose. One is the delay Bilbo had in declaring he had the Arkenstone. A number of weeks prior to the arrival of the Elven armies was involved. His delay at telling his comrades about the Ring a second. His habituation/attenuation to long-term use of the Ring a third (which was amoral. He ceased caring that he was an unwanted spy and became duly self-focussed in his motivations). His delivery of the Arkenstone to Bard and the Elven King was also just weird. The explicit prose states that he had no coveting of the stone and was pleased to be relieved of it. But, the problem with the behaviour was lack of affect and attachment to his Dwarf pals after the betrayal.

Having just re-read this part of the book, it sits really strangely with me. There's something missing in the explicit narrative about 'how you'd feel' about being with Bilbo after what we know about him to that point.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

I'm not exactly sure we get an exact definition of 'what' the Ring does to character and what character traits are varied. I understood that appeals to domination and control were a part of the transition. I see appeals to greed, themes of seduction, to self-serving behaviour, and also lust of sadism implicit in the transition. I'd add increased tendency for objectification, and for callous lack of empathy. If I had to draw on modern day conceptions, I'd be looking at psychopathy/sociopathy for assistance to clarify how the Ring exerted influence.

What the Ring offered its possessor was power, whatever the individual felt he needed such power for was really unimportant.

Isildur was a king with the attendant desire for strength to rule his realm and secure it; Gollum wanted to be able to sneak around and spy on others; Bilbo wanted the Ring's invisibility effect to aid him as the 'burglar', though he had also come to enjoy the power itself, feeling pride when it hid him from Smaug, and so forth.

The Ring called to the chink in one's armor which was one's greatest want, and it offered the power to effect it. Gandalf said the Ring would weigh on his innate feelings of pity and the desire to do good to corrupt him.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

There are several tacit themes in the book that don't square with the explicit prose. One is the delay Bilbo had in declaring he had the Arkenstone. A number of weeks prior to the arrival of the Elven armies was involved.

After Bilbo took the stone, the more time passed, the more difficult telling anyone he had it became. I can relate to that myself. The longer you keep some unpleasant secret, it gets harder and harder to let it go.
Also, he may have had some inkling that it would be useful in some way unrelated to him, whether that was a conscious thought or not.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

His delay at telling his comrades about the Ring a second. His habituation/attenuation to long-term use of the Ring a third (which was amoral. He ceased caring that he was an unwanted spy and became duly self-focussed in his motivations). His delivery of the Arkenstone to Bard and the Elven King was also just weird. The explicit prose states that he had no coveting of the stone and was pleased to be relieved of it. But, the problem with the behaviour was lack of affect and attachment to his Dwarf pals after the betrayal.

The Ring certainly could have been a factor in Bilbo's keeping it a secret so long. But he also was proud to have shown he wasn't as useless as some of the Dwarves seem to have thought, by the way he made it past Balin with appeared to be clever 'burglar' professional technique.

As for his 'betrayal' of the Dwarves after giving up the stone, he could hardly have stayed with them when Thorin had made it pretty clear he wasn't welcome anymore. Being picked up and threatened with being thrown to one's death wouldn't exactly make one want to stay with the person making the threat.