Bilbo´s treachery

[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

[Ivriniel]

For Morthoron. You said:

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:

*yawns* tired. Addressed, more times than the number of Cats the Queen Beruthial had. I refer, to example 'the dreaded chapter 5' upstream in my tittle-ingly stupid rants. Also address, oh my god, Morthoron, seriously, read again. I think I argue at three times that LotR (first rendition) referenced the UNvaried-UNsighted (woops uncited, no, I like Unsight, better hahahaha) HOBBIT version minus 1000, 2500 BC (i.e. the 'earliest one', and I use that date, 2500BC, to go back 'just in case' early enough, to be sure we know that 'earliest' Hobbit, means the garish tittles cited in the 1937 book). I knooooowww about his letters thingy. It's INCLUDED in my materials.

YET (and this bit you've still not absorbed) - Tolkien - HAD submitted the varied Hobbit manuscript (version 10,000, 3,500 AD, ie, the lovely one we all know) with all your yes, yes and yes, 1. birthday present 'gift' to 'deceptacon' lie thingy to Gandalf (the dreaded Chapter 5) WELL BEFORE he handballed draft one LotR to Allen and Unwin. I ***state*** several times this point, for another point, not your point, or the other point, you know the other one, but for these two points

1. Tolkien was battle weary, anxious and -- avoided -- updating publicists with variations in his ideas in regards to WHEN (TEMPORAL hypo citied) the Hobbit with spectres, garish of malign children's Rings filled posters' heads with Ringlore and Ash Nazg-Smeagaol, GOLL.....IANTs of ***DANCING*** hahahaha DarkLords.
2. Stuff about Hobbit Rings emerging ANYWAY in pre 'Dreaded Chapter 5 revisions' of the revised Wight at Bag End.(recall, the Dreaded Wight at Bag end was the UN-children's version of the amplified Hobbit, in the correct prequel, fore-ordained. The Dreaded Wight at Bag End - was it - the Ring, or Bilbo of Frodo - or Fredegar-Gollum?

Points 1. and 2. highlighting my materials about the points Mortharon makes , that were already made here and then summarised, again, in series of specific questions, some gross or so, upstream also, ***ahead*** of Morthron's assertions, here, claiming that I said Balrogs retired with needlecraft.

What I said was:

Yes, in the first Hobbit, Chapter 5 was a variation on the Chapter 5 in subsequent publication. And it is not correct to say that the Ring itself was not 'the possession' of the Necromancer in -- not correct to say 'the first edition'. It is correct to say that the Ring was made to belong to the Necromancer -- even in the first edition -- very early after the completion of the Hobbit. Stated another way, The hobbit was a seriocomic adaptation, but nonetheless, it served the purposes of bridging anyway. Two tools: the Necromancer and the ring, very quickly The Ring, and even for which version? 1938. There is actually more to this story as well. That is, no, the '1938'*** version was not 'all there is dates that are relevant'.

And Morthoron, do read the whole post. It is clearly speaking in turn.

***Canon-ITE TEST. You FAILED. You DIDN'T NOTICE THE ERROR!!!!! 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.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by 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?

In response to the ? (question mark), No. Elaborating:

It's to go -too- far into the terminator conceptions to put it that way, Pitchwife, though the movies assist to clarify an idea. Tolkien did not write a time-travel series. He was very interested in time travel though, as we (perhaps) see in echoes of Alboin's ponderings in our world, as his mind cast back to Numenor from Earth. Middle Earth as three ages, predating 'real modern history' is not a new idea. He also had a writing project about it (time travel) with CS Lewis who focussed on Space.

The extent to which I draw upon the Time feature makes the point about the real time between 1933 and 1937 primarily. Because The Hobbit was in readiness, basically (almost) by 1933, I'm making the argument that in that 4 years (and you can add 1 or 2 if you're being liberal), that's a lot of real time to ponder Necromancers, rings, even Rings.

The trouble is, the Letter/s in question don't point to how the 'Terminator-esque' authoring style kicked in to bridge the Hobbit with LotR. There were other choices. I suppose he could have 'greed-ised' the Arkenstone as an artefact of secret evil, undetected. Or varied the Hobbit to greed-ise the Arkenstone. Or any such varied plotlines.

The extent to which I speak of 'Tardis' 'Terminators' etc goes to the human mind in writing novels. You don't have the final plot done in your head. Some I suppose do. Most authors probably back-edit, or add plots, etc as they go. Tolkien had messy notes. He says in 1938, that what should have happened is that:

was said upstream under as
item 4.:

4. Three More Letters, Highlighting the "Transmutation Hypothesis"

Letter 26, dated 4th of March 1938, Turning to his own works, Tolkien said that he had reached the end of the third chapter in the sequel to The Hobbit, but that the story had taken an unpremeditated turn (Three is Company. That is but one chapter beyond the Shadow of the Past and again his mind was evolving the narrative. Then, In letter31 (24th of July 1938), he states the book should have come in in 1938 not 1937 for [edit of prior entry: 'in' not 'for'] time for the sequel in 1939. And that the Hobbit was not intended a prequil, because he was preoccupied with the Silmarilloion. However, the context, always with his communications to the Publisher was about anxiety about delays, appeals to understanding, tacit complaint because his loved Silmarillion was not published. Then on the 31st of August, 1938, letter 33. About LotR flowing along.

This letter series is important. Tolkien saying "it should have been" 1938 means something. Specifically, just four examples are given. These are by no means the spectrum of internal motivations that can be imputed (this one is specifically for Morthoron) in the paralingual text (or in the paralinguistic features) of the text*.

a. 'in hindsight, Unwin and Allen, I should have contacted you earlier, to let you know that I had an idea about the Hobbit, and can we -- pull -- the publication and -- I have this variation that I should have put in, some time ago, but didn't, and it fits better'. ***A 'hindsight/Inspired Post-Hoc basic imaginary motivational system***

or

b. 'it should have been 1938, because I needed time'. For whatever reason, an idea came to me sometime earlier. ***A 'time-pressed/stressed/I avoid you'*** motivational construct. Common in relationships with publishers.

c. I didn't imagine though that it was going to matter, thinking that when I finished it in 1933, I hadn't expected it was going to get published, and when I first gave it CS Lewis, I hadn't much considered necromancers and rings, but it has since occurred to me that there are two obvious joiners: Ring and Saurons, but you know guys (Allen and Unwin) it's just so difficult communicating with Editors, and it would have meant lots of expence and typing, and there's a war raging. London just got bombed and I'm worried about my family, so I didn't prioritise re-working the 1933 manuscript into a the prequel or -- any of its various possible structures, until life just overcame me with its popularity. ***An 'avoidance/expense' motivation to explain a delayed response***

or

d. Look guys (Allen and Unwin), you're just really difficult to negotiate with and youZ have rejected my Silmarillion so many times, I just hate asking you for anything. Here, have my bedside tale. It helped calm my kids during the war, but I had my Silmarillion quite handy in my head, and really, a Ring was quite early on in my mind, but RACK off publishers, and do what you want with the book I DON'T want to really passionately publish, and GIVEN THAT you DON'T want to publish the mythology, WHO CARES, whether or not I turn it in a Ring. I hate you publishers. Tired. Good night. ***a RESENTMENT/REJECTION/ABANDONMENT/SHAME motivational system. I go for this one, because he was a stoic, reserved, Anglo Saxon of the then Christian mind. Lots of shame. Lots of fear of social outcasting for deviating from the dominant social milieu and

e. Ungoliantisations of Manwe's backside, hindsighted, through Eonwe's purple hair. ***A IVRIENIEL IS STUPID BUT STILL NAUGHTY SOMETIMES motivation, because - maybe you guys one day will find out, what life and death experiences I've been through, and narrowly survived to live with a sense of humour.***

They're just three (hahahaha - has anyone picked up that I deliberately, do this, just a weeee bit) options (three options). I understand in Letters he talks about having 'used up' all his 'favourite' Lore things in the Hobbit. But that's just really not quite 'true'. Obviously not. The Silmarillion was concurrently ready and available in 1933. As IF an English Professor socialised by the then Anglo Saxon traditions at sparingly sharing internal feelings, in a STOIC world was GOING TO EVER share his private thoughts to a publisher or to anyone, deeply, except PERHAPS, his wife, and son. PERHAPS, Christopher knows only somewhat of the story.

We just don't know exactly 'when' he morphed the mythology? of the Hobbit {and - recall that it really goes the other way - he wrote a 'dancing Dark Lords' version of the Silmarillion for his children. Really, it was the Hobbit that was 'morphed' --AWAY--from the extant pre-existent mythology, not the other way around. He didn't 'morph' the Hobbit's mythology TO BECOME Silmarllion-ised. This goes to Morthoron's 'amplification' theory. That's a whole nuther item}. It's possible that he knew by 1937 {that there was a R-ing in his head, while the actual manuscript was being PRESSED} and hadn't known how to halt the publication machinery. It's not 2015, where halting and re-starting publication can be done in a day.

And as I said, the Silmarillion was concurrent. He 'goblin-ed' instead of 'Orc-ed' and 'Bard-ed' instead of 'Numenorean-ised'. But Orcrest and Glamdring and Gondolin and Gundabad, and Numenor - all already in his head - and written in the 'voice of narrative drama' not children's tales.

So - the ring. We just don't know exactly when from1933 onwards he morphed it, internally, into Sauron's 'reason' for Numenor to return to Middle Earth in the Last Alliance to defeat him.

The Last Alliance, was a concept, cut in stone in his pre-Hobbit materials.

[Edit] for Morthorond. Perhaps you might like to comment on paralinguistic facets of textual analysis. I take it from your reasoning style at the Boards that you've read a great deal and that you are a very gifted scholar. Your vocabulary is extensive and exemplary. Otherwise, no word - no brainer - the thread's nearly done.[/edit]

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

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.

Well, it's a funny post, actually. I'm not belly laughing, but it's funny. It seems to me that it's Morthoron who for some strange reason, tickles my funny bone. It's a mystery, to me actually, and I'd love it if you used the metaphor in the funny style (it's funny ) to reconnect with the materials.

Yes - life is too short - I decided, that, which is why I stopped being upset about thread materials that disagree with my opinion.

As my wonderful set of [funny] friends say - who I see often - 'opinions are like assho**s everybody has one'. I actually just spent the morning with a friend, who asked 'why is your voice croaky at the moment, Stav'. My reply "oh my god, I've never laughed so hard in a very long time. I'm enjoying this site where people are just so funny sometimes about canon-propriety.

It's wonderful, isn't it, having a life. And I don't know - are you suggesting only you have one away from here, or, um that I don't have one because I've written so much? Or that varying your posting style to Tardis to echo others' presence-ss (my precious, that it's time say 'I'm out').

I don't care, really. So, it's funny Pitchwife. I normally don't spend OH MY GOD - two days researching stuff. But, I did. I did it, to respect Morthoron, actually. Strangely, this has been lost on this stream. I understand that she/he really does appreciate -- CANON -- and so, I'm the 'idiot' (obtuse, I am was in her/his words) that - enjoyed - being told I was an idiot. Enjoyed being spanked, yanked, pushed, prodded, and were I younger, I'd have done what I no longer do.

Spitfire in reply. I curbed it. Started to allow it. Responded to content, sent thank you's, kind regards-es, and allowed it all. So here I am - at the other side. I normally would NEVER take such a time and delight in research and outpouring.

Yet, Pitchwife, these boards ARE part of my life. They are part of yours. And, that doesn't mean they are ALL my life. That's nonsense. And it's also nonsense to imply or suggest that any Canonite who has spent their career or LIFE dedicated to the Canon world to suggest it is NOT a life for those folk.

So, I appreciate your comments. I've enjoyed meeting you. I really liked the tie to Stephen Donaldson. And--I don't care, if you're cross at me. I'll live, and I'll allow it, and I'll enjoy being the -- good -- person I am.

Kind Regards - please re-engage, if you like. If you don't, as I said - I don't care. This thread's almost done. I do note, though, that between posting each round, there are an additional several dozen, sometimes several hundred reads.

So, that's another thing about words. I don't care, that I do care, that is to have a care, about care -- IN FACT -- to care, enough -- not to care, when - to care less, is to care more, and that's the funny thing about -- Grace. Whether or not you're a Christian, Grace is an aspirational -- term. That's why "...I like less that half of you half as well as you deserve...".

So, I'll take that as a good sign. I'm going to summarise the findings, in a crisp concluding post, with all the best bits of the -- JOURNEY.

I believe that people meet for a reason. I also believe our reason for meeting, Pitchwife is much more elusive than a gripe or two. Bear with me.

Kind regards

Iv