Bilbo´s treachery

[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]

PS, what's a 'latitudinal' argument? I've not heard the term. It entered the place in my mind where's there's wormhole that just starts my convulsive laughing. I saw, for example, 'lines of latitude - draw - over a post. Or - variation in width of the actual dimensions of a physical post. I'm sure you must mean something conceptual though. Please educate me.

Kind Regards

Iv-Goliant

[Edit]I just finished wiping actual tears of laughter with a tissue from my eyes--and that post on the Arkenstone thread - about Balgrogs skiing - oh no...the laughing has started again hahahaha[/edit]

[Ivriniel]

And

@Morthorom

About my 'blatant' error - I'll spell out what it's Ungoliantine-ish (it's only an 'ish' not a full blown Ungoliant as in your processing error) about my -competing- hypothesis - to spell it out...

is NOT about 'variations in text' between the 5000 BC (1933) and 1937 First Release VersionSES (Bagginses) of the HobbitS.

I've - how many times, Mortharon - mentioned

TEMPORAL - then causality loops.

My competing hyperbola is about TIME (N-O-T---C-O-N-T-E-N-T) in variations in WHAT the prof WAS v WAS NOT thinking about in relation to r-ings when he made his LETTERS comments, CONCEDING (as I have conceded) that it became a R-ing AFTER (time/slip) WRITING, the Dreaded Wight of Bag End.***

So - have another look at my heuristic, upstream (and vary the number of years by two, down from six, to four - apologies - you see, I'm really just like you - an Ungolai-rian in me, as well.

Yours KINDLY and smilingly

[Edit]***The Dreaded Wight at Bag End is the 'revised' tome, that 'would' or 'could' or 'might' or 'should' exist, WERE The Hobbit's LORE -- your word -- AMPLIFIED -- to be more cogent, or narratively consistent, or prescriptively aligned with, or inferentially non-maleficently yet incrementally similar {but certainly not without 'circumlocutIONS' - not circumlotuANIONS as in chemistry} to LotR.[/edit] (highlighted for a purpose, in the pending 'longitudinal theory'.

Armenelos-Imrahil-Gilmith-VRINIEL

[Ivriniel]

...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]...

...And I add, that the donging-on-the-head of the --assumption-- does NOT preclude the.....

Competing one - yours - about content, not timing.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

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.

So, on another forum where I spend time, a member posted a random story about his morning ritual, which he calls "The Terminator", and which he felt the need to share with everyone. He told this story right in the middle of a thread about boxing, of all things. Nothing remotely resembling a segue led up to the story; he just threw it in the middle of the thread.

He described how he crouches down in the shower in the classic "naked terminator traveling through time" pose, with his eyes closed for about a minute (visualizing either Arnold or the guy from the second movie) and he starts to hum "The Terminator" theme. Then he slowly rises to a standing position and opens his eyes.

He said that this ritual helps him to proceed through his day as an emotionless, hard-core cyborg, and he ended by saying that the only problem is if the shower curtain sticks to his leg as he steps out; it ruins the fantasy for him.

After reading this outré non-sequitur I was fairly confused for a while. And then I logged in to the Barrow Downs Forum, read what I quoted above, and "The Terminator" story made a lot more sense.

Ivriniel, thank you for clearing this up for me.

[Ivriniel]

*warm smiles*

John Whatshisname was pretty awesome. I grew very (happily) cross-eyed during the Terminator mythology. I loved the chin-ups scene with the mother. Favourite bit. No-one bar me seemed to like John Carter -- I just absolutely loved it --

Anyhooz Temporal Hyperbola about times and Time Loops *wipes brow* (phew, so far, so good. I might, if things keep going smilingly, be able to do the longitudinal.....hmm, I need a better word. It's too turgid, that.)

Kind Regards

[Ivriniel]

Morthoron, I've found an - it's not quite an 'error' - what you've done is diverting of focus. This interrupts the pause.

You said, actually, watch:

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'.

It's going too far to call it 'devious', and that would be ***wilfully*** nonsensically, UNfun of me. And dark lords as you so rightly pointed out, dance with -- slippers -- and may I add -- the Lidless Eye, must have had ***some*** means of bobbing about in children's minds.

So, it's certainly not 'devious' of you to cite that item. But, as you know, the TITLE LotRRRRRRRR (with The Dreaded Wight at Bag End prequel) not Lotr (with the Hobbit prequel) was -- in place -- by DECEMBER of 1937.

Ergo, your point, actually, inadvertently highlights exactly what I mean on two fronts. The first is -- you can't trust the letters he wrote Prima Face on ***some*** areas where those letters are to the Publisher.

He was anxious, fraught, at times in poverty, pressured by horrific deadlines at the then University system, and by other -- no doubt -- malevolent egoic interactions amongst his cohort. He wrote to Unwin and always, beleaguered and the context was to 'beg borrow or steal' more writing time for LotR. And recall, he was disheartened, probably disenchanted about the repeated rejection of his beloved manuscript, The Silmarillion.



Sooooo '...vaguest...' notion - does not impute - 'ring' - and with I would add, high likelihood.



It means 'give me space, give me a break, you rejected my works, I'm gunna need a bitta time to get this show on the road'..

AND

Do indeed ponder the likelihood that he was also -- passively resentful -- and quietly, probably even resentfully figuring out how he could -- USE -- the opportunity to sneak in/get in/squash in, as much as he could of the FA and SA.

Now - that is not at all a topical assertion. If you look at my post (not that one, but not that one, but you know that one) you'll see it repeatedly asserted that he was 'lengthening' 'extending' 'distorting'







TIME.






AND IN FACT, HE AND CS LEWIS DIVIDED UP ANOTHER PROJECT. CS LEWIS BANGED ON ABOUT SPACE, AND TOLKIEN ABOUT TIME, IN THEIR ORWELIAN 'EELOY/MORACK' OBSESSION /LIKE THINGMEBOB IN ANOTHER WRITING PROJECT....

HE DISTORTS TIME IN TWO WAYS IN THE MYTHOLOGY. ONE IS TERMINATOR-ISH (THANK YOU TO THAT AWESOME POSTER TO HELP ME OUT) AND THE OTHER WAY - 'RACK OFF ALLEN AND UNWIN - I NEED TIME'









Ergo - The Dreaded Wight at Bag End.

I wonder, seriously. With that massive pressure upon him - fiscal, editorial, emotional - from publicists, during such a -- hideous -- time in history (people dropping dead all around him and he lost so many of his friends in WWI), WHAT he was thinking between 1933 and 1937.

Seriously, he and CS Lewis, used to meet on Fridays (you know this) do discuss their loved works, to find beauty in their lives, while the world went totally crazy around them. I cannot possibly NOT imagine that Necromancers were not the Thu/Sauron of SA/Numenor (see my posts please), probably even AS he wrote it and also THIS one for Numenor. What he said in Letters - who quite knows exactly - his unique motivational emphasis depending on recipient.

However, YES - it does seem, that it was ring - initially. But certainly not as late as 1938. The date range for his 'thinking' was, of course, between 1933 to 1937 and with the triple lock of FA/SA materials/Hobbits/Dark Lords BY 1933.

So - in conclusion, I'm pretty sure I did say that Balrogs swam through lava conduits, carrying Silmarils too and from in Albatross migratory patterns, but underground, but I'm still not sure if they sew needle craft between Morgoth's Dagor thiny's? Perhaps that's why Luthien got in Thangorodrim. I mean, she and Beren were flying with winged clothes, so, perhaps they chatted about a needed repair at the gates.

Kind Regards

Ungol-viel