Bilbo´s treachery

[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

[Ivriniel]

Information Summary Post: Key Themes and Examples of Information

1. Lalaith's Premises (awesome topic)

a. Arenstone-ian stealth in stealing, stones of staining, the heart of Dwarves - Dwarvish Rage is Thorin's province. 'Moral Outrage, treacherous Bilbo'.
b. Thranduil is the scavenger - 'creature to Crebain - Thranduil-ian craven'.
c. Bilbo, during the Battle of the Five Armies, "preferred on the whole to defend the Elven King". What exactly has Thranduil done to deserve this loyalty?

2. Morality-Legality Distinctions - Propriety and Personality & Cannon

a. The Moral Share/Legal Share distinction. Thraduil-ian-craven - beware!
b. HUMOUR - Legal-ese Rear-ends, and unstoppable cerebral bearing!
c. HUMOUR - Awesome!
d. Balancing motivations - Pride and Loss - Inverted across the Races.
e. Nice Synthesis By Galadriel!
f. Posts 59, 61, 94, 101, 104, and meh, 75/25 weighting to post 80 (it's the restating that weakens it. Once is enough).
g. rIngs of power and Rings of Power - power begone and Power begone - the ring (not the Ring) is everywhere.

3. Arkenston-ean-Dwarvish-Greed-Beware!!! Ash-Nazg Arkenstone, Durbataluk! Arkenstone, Arkenstone, you are EVERYWHERE

a. Some stone in the ground glows a bit like glowsticks at a Nighclub, but more than 1/14th of the wealth to only some.

4. Serious, Thoughtful, Considered -

a. Insights about Warring Peoples

I). "The Common Enemy Unites Us"..
II). Where 'stealing' to one sight, is heroism in self-sacrifice to another. Urgency to Stop Killing - primary motivation.

b). Awesome Redirective Focus Post: Focal Distinctions: The Canon Analysis V And/Or the Narrative Analysis Distinction AndOr Hindsight/Foresight Positioning (at a particular date) During Post Construction

5. Hiding under rocks Or Enjoying Being Flattened as the Rock you thought you were hiding under (and clinging to) started rolling down the Hill...QUICKLY.

a. Hiding without a magic ring is hard!.
b. Backpeddling - after being flattened, correctly.
c. Funny how 'little red squares' have this way of appearing at times.
d. "I don't like ....me.....do you like .....you. Didn't work! The Rock Rolls faster and faster down the hill. I'm getting very flat!

6. Really Bad Posts (Falls from Grace-the Devil's Number 666 - or Melkor Upon Us From the Void - and Grace Repair - Quick Quick Quick)

a. The Lidless Eye is literally hot. Annatar is 'hot'. Context Blunders and Unthoughtful Thunders.
b. Ramblings and Ramblings.

7. Humour I Missed Along the Road - and Special Thank YouZ (A Liberty Taken by Me for Cutting the Post after Summarising)

a. Awesome Post - Thank you kindly for your manners.
b. Awesome Start Here Galadriel - A Belly Laugh Upon Me as I Type! Kind Regards..
c. "....Once again your strain position...." it starts AGAIN, the WORMHOLE EFFECT, ANOTHER BELLY LAUGH, Kind Regards Mor.....gg...Morthor_n! Phew! .
d. "...oh and I did paddle the turgid straits and navigated the frothy....." ungoliants, "...upstream". Another Awesome one.
e. "...you may think your gibberish you are typing..." GRINNING/HURTING STOMACH AGAIN - Funny Bone alert.
f. "...getting closer to ungoliant...." - Kind Regards Morthoron
g. "...circum.."lociously, deliciously, Ungoliantines "...circumlocutious...", "...latitudinal..." arguments, "...rambling...obtuse", migrating patterns of Subterranean Silmarils, Skiing Balrogs, and Balrogs that retire with Needlecraft.
h. I've edited your post for clarity by omitting most ......" of it but! "...I'll leave in the juvenile misspelling of my name" Kind Regards Mor- *coughs..struggles....squirms...* "-thoron.
I. Kindness, and warmth.

And -

MY FAVOURITE POST and
SECOND FAVOURITE of Morthoron's Cited.

[Edit]12/09/2015 @ 7:31 am (Aus-EST): a) Integration of Posts 123 thru 125 & b) Reorganisation of Post[/Edit]

[Ivriniel]

Response to Posts Deferred For Comment - More to Say With Canon-ites

Post 59
Post 61

Unfinished Business

1. Please, threadkeeper Lalaith, if you want, claim ownership to the Summary Post and modify it!!! It's a really cool idea we all used to do at a really fun Geek Forum that was also ultra serious and ultra fun, all at once. Unfortunately, it's gone now. I realise it's not about me, but everyone. I just wanted to 'kick start' the idea. "Threadkeepers" at the other Forum all used to do it.
2. The thing, that was the original thing, long long ago, I was going to say, at about post minus 10. The "Bilbo Changed" theory (even though and despite, and so it is, and well it is, and Baggines, that it's a look at Hobbit Version -- "that new one I read" (Alias, Title - Terminator Series Adaptation, "The Dreaded White at Bag End") - "Longitudinal Theory about Bilbo's Transmutation". Four Premises:

a. Hobbit's Baseline tendencies for Evil/Treachery/Deception/Greed.
b. Bilbo's Baseline tendencies.
c. How did he change, along the way.
d. Did this influence his 'treachery' to handover the Silmari...Arkenstone.

Or said to the Canon-ites

Where did the prof spot 'R..ing'-consistent themes in the Dancing Dark Lords in Children's Head's (Fairytale) version of Hobbit - ORIGINAL or REVISED - and the key word is **retrospectively**?

[Mithadan]

Regardless of the commotion that this thread has engendered, there is an interesting theme that is worthy of discussion here. The Ring (or ring) is the bridge between The Hobbit and LoTR. The question of whether Bilbo has come under the effect of the One (by concealing the Ring/ring from Gandalf, by lying about it/ by taking/stealing/earning the Arkenstone) is, in reality, a matter of subjective perspective.

What is your focus? Do you view the texts from the perspective of the (historical) drafter? Do you hone in upon the fact that The Hobbit was completed before the "bridge" of the One Ring was conceived as the basis for interpreting Bilbo's motives? Is this a valid view?

Or do you view the texts from the perspective of the (post revised Hobbit) reader, looking to perceive a smooth transition between the works and, more importantly, a uniform tale from Gandalf's first arrival at Bag End to Sam's sad return to Bag End?

If the latter, then it is entirely possible that the Ring ( as opposed to the ring) may have influenced Bilbo's choices. Just days ago I noted that Isildur, having possessed the Ring for a matter of hours, could not make the right decision: to destroy the Ring. Bilbo, possessing the Ring for a period of time even longer, could have been influenced by its evil animus.

If the former, then Bilbo possessed a curiosity, a ring of invisibility. Interesting, but unimportant except as a device within the tale. The ring could not have influenced events. It had noting to do with Bilbo's choice regarding the Arkenstone or his concealment of the ring from Gandalf. It was not THE ONE.

Which is it? Let's proceed (if at al) in a civil manner, please.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

If the latter, then it is entirely possible that the Ring ( as opposed to the ring) may have influenced Bilbo's choices. Just days ago I noted that Isildur, having possessed the Ring for a matter of hours, could not make the right decision: to destroy the Ring. Bilbo, possessing the Ring for a period of time even longer, could have been influenced by its evil animus.

Even if you choose to interpret the works of J.R.R. Tolkien as continuous and uniform world, you'd still have to explain why the Ring would play a part in Bilbo's decision to take, keep and give away the Arkenstone. And that's where the argument looses me. Exactly what decision is supposed to be influenced by the Ring? The initial and spontaneous impulse to take the Arkenstone in the first place? Keeping it a secret? Or giving it away to enforce a peaceful compromise?!

For the point of the ongoing discussion I'll take the following as a starting point:

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

It seems you argued that the Ring may (or may not) have influenced the whole package, from the taking to the giving away of the Arkenstone. Besides, it seems to me that you are implying that Bilbo conceived the plot with the intention to harm the Company and put them in a disadvantageous position. I have a few problems with that. Bilbos motivation for his plot, to give the Arkenstone away, is very well fleshed out in the Hobbit. He wanted to put an end to a deadlocked and dangerous conflict. He just wanted to get home. To achieve that he gave the only thing away which could be used as leverage against Thorin. He didn't put "the dwarves" on the back foot. He chose to give up his own share and reward to ensure a reasonable and peaceful solution to the given situation. The dwarves would have had the same amount of Gold, Bard would have his fair share and nobody would have to die. I try really hard to understand how the Ring of Power, the pinnacle of evil, could have had any influence in this motivation. Does anything comparable happen in the LotR-novels? The Ring usually doesn't support altruistic and problem solving behaviour. I fail to see how the Ring could have had any effect in Bilbo's decision to give the Arkenstone away. Bilbo doesn't get anything (no power, no wealth and no honor) from his plan, except for the possibility that he may see his beloved Hobbit-hole again. For me, that's as atypical for the kind of influence the Ring has on people, as it gets.

Yes, the Ring does alter the personality and actions of a person. And yes, Bilbo's deed could be (unfairly, imho) interpreted as dishonest and treacherous. But I still don't see a connection between those two things. The Ring influences his owner in a very specific way. It's not like it reinforces immoral actions in general. During the course of the story (LotR) we don't see Bilbo, or Frodo, becoming bad persons, or acting more and more selfish and immoral. At worst they get defensive and delusional when it comes to the question of their claim to the Ring. But usually they are still the normal, generous and kind Hobbits they've always been, despite the fact that they have kept the Ring for such a long time.