Bilbo´s treachery

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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