Bilbo´s treachery

[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

[Ivriniel]

**pauses**

I'm not posting the Longitudinal Latitude-grid-post-width theory about Bilbo-s amped up variant in the book, The Dreaded Wight at Bag End (the spectral black variant of White garish spectre-Stags where the Hobbit ideas -- morphed -- in the prof's head).

No necessity to cite the summary heuristic I developed. Though I'll add it in. You can do this extra analysis -- as I always SAID -- whilst CONCEDING the -- various whatevers whoever wants to say whatever about them about the 1937 Hobbit. The stuff of the 'longitudinal' bit, will use our fabled, known, lovely, Dreaded Chapter 5 revisions.

Not doing this, until the Balrog travels to Erebor through lava conduits to migrate the Silmaril that belonged to .....Maedhros....who tossed it away, coz it burned his hand.

(ie - let's stamp out one item at a time. I'm waiting to see if Morthoron or anyone else has anything else to say about the items upstream. I'll wait a day or two. If nothing, I'll add in the new stuff.)