Bilbo´s treachery

[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.

[Ivriniel]

Just when I thought I'd unearthed all the funny bits, I found ANOTHER -

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

***D-A-N-C-I-N-G***

in the children's heads.

HAHAHAHAHAHA - 'garish spectres' of 'phantom' soorrrrry - belly laughing - of Ungoliantines, (u spelt spectER wrong, wait, so did I) ...with 'visions of malign RRRRings created by hahahahaha DARK LORDS (nooooo, Necroman-GOLIANTS) hahahaha dancing IN the Children's HEADS.

MY STOMACH HURTS !!! STOP IT hahahshshs

At the least, we ARE in SOMEONE's heads, even though we haven't yet made it Into the Prof's HEAD, which is what my ***obtuse***'heuristic-ses' hahahaha was trying to achieve.

I can see, you've 'evolved' your position to 'agree' hahahaha with me hahahahaha

[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

[Pitchwife]

Wait a minute, I've got it. Tolkien first drew a connection between the Necromancer and the Ring while working on a sequel to The Hobbit in late 1937 / early 1938, but then went back in time to 1933 and told his younger self all about it, is that it?

And he did so with the help of Tom Bombadil, who is actually a Time Lord who travelled through all the history of Arda before he was marooned in Third Age Eriador together with his companion, Goldberry - which is how he could have seen the first acorn etc. and Treebeard could still be the eldest living creature, because, well, Tom came from the future in his house, which is of course a Tardis with its chamaeleon circuit intact, or how do you suppose it was able to conjure up a room with four mattresses and matching slippers for Frodo and his friends?

Sorry, Ivriniel, life is too short for this. I'm out.