Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Reading Room:
** The Hobbit, “Riddles in the Dark”** 5. – “My birthday-present! Curse it! How did we lose it, my precious?”

squire
Valinor


Aug 14 2012, 3:46pm

Post #1 of 6 (1157 views)
Shortcut
** The Hobbit, “Riddles in the Dark”** 5. – “My birthday-present! Curse it! How did we lose it, my precious?” Can't Post

Let’s continue at the point in the chapter when Bilbo hears Gollum, off on his island in the darkness, crying and wailing at the discovery that his ring is missing. “My precious is lost!” Wait, what is lost? The narrator quite clearly explained at the beginning that Gollum called himself “my precious”.
A. Does the average reader of The Hobbit catch that this is the first time that Gollum refers to the ring, rather than himself, as “my precious”?

Bilbo calls across the water, “What have you lost?” and Gollum yells back, none of your business!
B. Why does Bilbo intrude on Gollum’s personal misery?

Bilbo insists that Gollum abandon his search for whatever it is. Since he could not guess the question, Bilbo cries, Gollum must return to the shore to redeem his promise: to show Bilbo out. By pushing the argument that Gollum must forget about his ring because he could not guess the contents of the hobbit’s pockets, Bilbo unwittingly helps Gollum make a dangerous connection. Gollum “suddenly” hisses sharply, “What has it got in its pocketses? Tell us that. It must tell first.”
C. Would Gollum have figured it out without Bilbo’s intervention here?

Now, if you remember the previous post, Tolkien in his 1947 rewrite had drastically expanded the section just before this one, where originally Gollum had gone to his island to find his “present” to give to Bilbo but found it missing. It was there that Tolkien inserted the backstory of the ring, as the narrator, more or less channeling Gollum’s thoughts, explained to us that Gollum was going to get his magic ring by which he intended to overcome the sword-armed Bilbo.

But in the original writing, it was actually at this point here – after Gollum finds the ring missing – where we learned about the ring. After the screeching and crying (“We haven't the present we promised, and we haven't even got it for ourselves"), he returned to Bilbo and explained that he had meant to give Bilbo his ring, with all its magical invisibility power which he explained in detail. Then he apologized profusely for his inability to fulfill the terms of the contest: “We are ssorry; we didn't mean to cheat, we meant to give it our only only pressent, if it won the competition."

Briefly, the structural change is this:

Original: Gollum loses game – Gollum goes to island to find present – Bilbo almost leaves but decides to stay out of curiosity – present is missing – Gollum apologetically explains to Bilbo about magic ring.
Revision: Gollum loses game – Gollum goes to island to get equalizer – Bilbo has no choice but to wait – narrator/Gollum explains to reader about magic ring – the ring is missing – Gollum angrily realizes Bilbo has the ring.

Not surprisingly, of course, the explanation about the ring was considerably less developed before the revision: it was “a wonderful, beautiful ring, a ring that he had been given for a birthday present, ages and ages before in the old days when such rings were less uncommon.” He sometimes kept it in his pocket, but usually kept it on the island. He only wore it when he was tired of fish and went goblin-hunting, because (he reveals at this point) “if you slipped that ring on your finger, you were invisible” (except for the sunlight thing). But there was nothing about a growing obsession mixed with unpleasant side effects of wearing it; nothing about the ring’s “Master”; and nothing about recently killing and eating a young goblin.
D. Do the additions – consistent with LotR, but irrelevant to Bilbo’s adventure – violate the rule of not telling more story than you have to?

Well, he may not have economized on details, but as was typical of Tolkien in revision, he economized his composition. Thus as much of the language of Gollum’s explanation of the ring to Bilbo (in original paragraph §72-1, start in left column at "usually") as he could use, was recycled and inserted into Gollum’s interior monologue (in revised paragraph §70h, start in right column at "usually"). Most of Tolkien’s revisions to this chapter involve subtle changes in the wording of a paragraph, or (as in this central section) wholesale cutting and rewriting but with the preservation of existing language wherever possible. This example here is actually the only significant place where he transposed much of a passage to a different place in the parallel narratives. (In my opinion, this explains the stylistic awkwardness of the exposition about the ring in the current version.)
E. Given the parameters, do you see any other ways Tolkien could have accomplished his goal here? How much does the reader have to know, that Bilbo doesn’t know, at any given point?

To pick up the story, Gollum has just challenged Bilbo to reveal the answer to his last riddle-question – a request Bilbo has already been asked once, which he refused to answer then (“Never you mind,” said Bilbo. “A promise is a promise.”) Now he refuses again, but not because he yet suspects his ring is what Gollum lost. Bilbo is still clueless. Rather, he is “annoyed at the delay” and feels he is owed his reward without a lot of revisiting the contest – “After all, he had won the game, pretty fairly, at a horrible risk.”
F. How does Tolkien seem to choose when to have his characters think silently, in dialogue form, and when to have the narrator state the thoughts in the third person, as in this instance?

Gollum is determined not to let it go. “But it wasn’t a fair question. Not a riddle, precious, no.”
G. Why didn’t Gollum stick to this approach during the game, when he could have?

Bilbo deflects once again: he points out that he had just asked a question himself. “What have you lost? Tell me that!” The answer comes right back: “What has it got in its pocketses?” Standoff!
H. Is this kind of combative verbal behavior characteristic of Bilbo?

Suddenly Bilbo can see Gollum’s eyes as “two small points of light” – because, we are told, his eyes are literally lighting up along with his suspicion about the ring being in Bilbo’s pocket. Bilbo tries again with “What have you lost?”
I. Does Bilbo really care at this point? Why ask again?

Gollum’s eyes are aflame like “a green fire” and he is “paddling wildly” from the island towards Bilbo on the shore. He is so angry and upset, we are told, that he is no longer afraid of Bilbo’s sword. Bilbo finally gets the message, and hightails it up the tunnel, using his left hand along the “wall” to guide himself. Gollum, leaping onto the shore, again asks what Bilbo has in his pocket, and Bilbo thinks about the question: “ ‘What have I, I wonder?’” he said to himself, as he panted and stumbled along.”
J. Since this is the same thought process that led him to ask the final game-winning “riddle”, is it possible that Bilbo actually does not know what it is that he has in his pocket?

K. Is this the time and place for Bilbo to be thinking like this, as he runs for his life? Why did he not think this through while Gollum was trying to guess his question/riddle, or the two earlier times that Gollum asked him afterwards?

He puts his left hand in his pocket and “The ring felt very cold as it quietly slipped on to his groping forefinger.”
L. Again, is this as plausible as we might like? (I.e., try sticking your hand into your pocket where a ring is, while running fast. See what happens.)

Suddenly, Bilbo trips and falls flat, with his sword under him. Gollum passes him right by and continues running up the slope. Bilbo is baffled, since he knows that “Gollum could see in the dark” – in fact, as Gollum runs on ahead, Bilbo can see the glow of his eyes faintly illuminating the walls of the tunnel!
M. What does it mean to “see in the dark”? And does that ability have any connection with the ability of eyes to give off light? – given that earlier, we know that Gollum could tell Bilbo from a goblin from across the lake, when his eyes were not giving off light.



As noted above, invisibility isn't everything, especially in the dark when trying to evade creatures who are fully adapted to lightlessness.
N. Why does Gollum not hear Bilbo fall, or smell him as he runs past him?

Bilbo, without knowing what’s happened to save him, chooses to follow Gollum, hoping the creature will lead him to a way out of the caverns. Now Gollum realizes that he has lost Bilbo, who was up ahead of him. As Bilbo listens, Gollum begins to talk to himself about how Bilbo has his “birthday-present”, and how it must have “slipped from us, after all these ages and ages” while Gollum was strangling the young goblin (just a few hours before, as we were told earlier).

“Oh, ho ho! You sly dog! You got me monologuing! I can't believe it...”

O. What is wrong with monologuing?

Gollum stops and has a good cry, which is “horrible to listen to.”

Then he begins to “have an argument with himself,” to which Bilbo listens attentively.
  • Gollum A is in despair, saying “it’s no use”, the present can’t be found, it could be in too many places he’s visited, and in any case “the Baggins” must have it in his pocket now.
  • Gollum B points out that that is probably true, but may not be. In any case, Bilbo doesn’t know what the present can do, and he doesn’t know the way out so he can’t get very far before Gollum can find him and kill him.
  • Gollum A suspects Bilbo may know a way out, because he is a proven liar, as witness his trick question about the thing in his pocket; it’s probable that Bilbo knows about the “back-door”.
  • Gollum B points out that that way is guarded.
  • Gollum A says yes, but that means the goblins will get the present for themselves after they capture Bilbo. With the present, the goblins will be invisible and will be able to hunt and kill Gollum!
  • Gollum B agrees that is the greatest danger, and that they should head for the back-door immediately and try to get the present back before the goblins get it.

P. How does this debate relate to the famous Stinker/Slinker debates that Gollum engages in during the journey with Frodo and Sam in The Lord of the Rings? Do Gollum A and Gollum B as separate speakers (A and B are simply my terms of reference) represent anything?

Q. How does this method of exposition serve as a way for Bilbo to find out what the ring’s power is, compared to what we saw was in the original version: Gollum simply tells Bilbo what the ring can do.

R. If overhearing vital information from bad guy conversation is a classic device in adventure genre fiction, how does Tolkien make the device his own here? Or does he?

S. Where else does Tolkien use this device? Are the instances comparable, and is their frequency and variety acceptable to the reader?

As Gollum heads off “at a great pace”, Bilbo runs after him as quietly and carefully as he can. He is excited to realize the power of the ring, which he had “heard of, of course, in old old tales.” Now he knows how it is that Gollum “with his bright eyes” had passed him in the tunnel without seeing him, “only a yard to one side.”
T. This has come up in some rather scholarly articles, but which “old old tales” involve a ring of invisibility?

Well, we have just read 22 almost entirely new paragraphs in the revised edition, from the point where Bilbo unwittingly inspires Gollum to guess he has the ring, to this moment where Bilbo has discovered the nature of the Ring and realizes that following Gollum will get him to the “back-door”. This very long section replaces 11 paragraphs in the original.

The replaced segment has Bilbo cleverly keeping his mouth shut about the fact that he already has the ‘present’ Gollum has just told him all about. “‘Finding's keeping!’ he said to himself; and being in a very tight place, I daresay, he was right. Anyway the ring belonged to him now.”
U. Why does the narrator justify Bilbo’s failure to be honest with Gollum, who has just honestly apologized for failing to produce the present?

Bilbo, taking advantage of Gollum’s dishonor at “cheating”, said “I will let you off on one condition." That was to show him the way out. Gollum considered for one last time his ability to overcome Bilbo and eat him anyway, but realized he has no chance now that Bilbo was alert and aware of him – not to mention the “little sword”.
V. Is the sword/knife supposed to be so small, that both Bilbo and Gollum doubt its ability to settle the matter between them in a pinch?

Gollum explained to Bilbo that the tunnel stopped here at the lake, and did not go further; and that Bilbo ought to have taken one of the side passages that he passed on the way down. When Gollum tried to describe which passage was the right one, Bilbo couldn’t follow the directions. And so he compelled Gollum to lead him up to the right one. During the ascent, Bilbo put the ring on, and Gollum immediately missed him, “peering about with his long eyes”. Bilbo, pleased with himself for proving the ring’s power, took it off again and reassured Gollum that he was still there “following behind.” Gollum never suspected that Bilbo’s sudden disappearance was due to the ring.
W. Is it an irresistible temptation to try an invisibility ring out? Doesn’t your sudden disappearance kind of give away the trick?


Today’s discussion has covered the largest and most substantial differences between the original “Riddles” chapter and the post-LotR one.
X. It might be silly or meaningless to ask, which do you prefer? Or is it more fair to ask which is more consistent with the tone of The Hobbit as it is largely written?

Y. Is it an indication of the difficulty of updating The Hobbit to LotR’s “standards” that the new chapter is five pages longer than the old, and far more complex in its interior plot line and narrative style?

Z. Not fair perhaps: but is this the same difficulty MGM and Peter Jackson are having in trying to make a Hobbit film or films after making The Lord of the Rings?



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd (and NOW the 4th too!) TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


CuriousG
Valinor


Aug 18 2012, 6:48pm

Post #2 of 6 (793 views)
Shortcut
Post-riddles Gollum [In reply to] Can't Post

A. Does the average reader of The Hobbit catch that this is the first time that Gollum refers to the ring, rather than himself, as “my precious”?
I'm average, and no.

C. Would Gollum have figured it out without Bilbo’s intervention here?
This is a minor weakness to me. Bilbo could have had anything valuable in his pocketses that he didn't want to give to Gollum--a handful of diamonds or a gold watch--so for Gollum to become so quickly convinced that it's the Ring, which Bilbo could not have stolen from the island, is a tenuous connection. I suppose one could say that Gollum is obsessive, and if you obsess over one thing, that's all you think about, but I think the story could have used a little more information spillage from Bilbo. The hobbit doesn't know it's a magic ring or that it belongs to Gollum since an orc could have dropped it, for all Bilbo knows, so Bilbo could have said, "It's just a goblin ring I found up the passage. Now get me out of here like you promised." Also, the Ring has decided this hobbit is more likely to get it outside the mountain and back to its master, so the Ring wouldn't be tipping Gollum off.

D. Do the additions – consistent with LotR, but irrelevant to Bilbo’s adventure – violate the rule of not telling more story than you have to?
If so, Tolkien would be in jail for numerous violations. Ever hear about the cats of Queen Beruthiel? Smile

G. Why didn’t Gollum stick to this approach during the game, when he could have?
That would have been rational; he isn't.

H. Is this kind of combative verbal behavior characteristic of Bilbo?
Yes and no. No, because he's gentle at heart, but yes, because he is a stuffy aristocrat, and I can imagine him getting his feathers ruffled in Hobbiton with anyone who's crossed him.

L. Again, is this as plausible as we might like? (I.e., try sticking your hand into your pocket where a ring is, while running fast. See what happens.)
Not sure what you mean by "plausible." If we know about the Ring, Frodo, and The Prancing Pony, then we can expect this. If we don't know, I'd still say it's plausible. Strange things happen in a panic that you wonder about later and don't see how they happened.

What I want to know is how a ring "quietly" slips on your finger. Do they ever make noise? Though of course I know Tolkien isn't being literal here, and his word usage works well.

N. Why does Gollum not hear Bilbo fall, or smell him as he runs past him?
Hobbits can move without making a sound. Maybe then can fall that way too? But really, you make a good point, especially about Gollum smelling him.

O. What is wrong with monologuing?
Nothing. Just ask Shakespeare.

P. How does this debate relate to the famous Stinker/Slinker debates that Gollum engages in during the journey with Frodo and Sam in The Lord of the Rings? Do Gollum A and Gollum B as separate speakers (A and B are simply my terms of reference) represent anything?
I don't see this as a Stinker and Slinker split. It's more like what normal people think inside: "I'd love a piece of pizza." "But you're trying to lose weight." "But I may not pass this local pizza place again." "It's probably too expensive, and you have other things to do." [Tolkien would add: "But I'm hungry, gollum!, and we is going to eats the pizza, by gollum!"]

Q. How does this method of exposition serve as a way for Bilbo to find out what the ring’s power is, compared to what we saw was in the original version: Gollum simply tells Bilbo what the ring can do.
It's a little contrived and too convenient to me. But I can't imagine Gollum giving Bilbo the information freely, even when he was in a better mood. But I don't think Tolkien abuses this device. An author more prone to cliches would have had readers hearing Sauron cackle in his castle as he plotted to conquer the world, and done the same with Saruman and his many plots. Here's an aside: we never hear what's going on inside Saruman's head, do we? Nor really get his perspective on things. Why do you suppose that is?

V. Is the sword/knife supposed to be so small, that both Bilbo and Gollum doubt its ability to settle the matter between them in a pinch?
My question is: how come Gollum NEVER uses a weapon??? I'd think he could steal one off a goblin. Do goblin weapons betray you like troll purses do?

W. Is it an irresistible temptation to try an invisibility ring out? Doesn’t your sudden disappearance kind of give away the trick?
Yes, and yes, but if it were me, I would give into the temptation, and more than once. It just seems so cool! But since I'm not really into burglary, I don't know what I'd do with it.

X. It might be silly or meaningless to ask, which do you prefer? Or is it more fair to ask which is more consistent with the tone of The Hobbit as it is largely written?
I like the revised version, regardless of the connection to LOTR, because Gollum is more sinister, and that makes the story scarier, down here in a dark tunnel where the hero is lost, alone, and blind. As for style inconsistencies, I think style needs to adapt to context, and don't see a problem here. To fast forward to LOTR, Tolkien uses "lo!" a few times when the story is on a grander scale (when we reach Minas Tirith), and that works for me. How silly would it have been for the Shire fox (silly enough) to have said, "Lo! Behold, I see hobbits sleeping outside of their hallowed halls!" You can talk that way as a narrator in Gondor when the world is in peril, but not in a folksy place like the Shire. Though if we're going to talk about revisions, I wish we could delete that fox.

Z. Not fair perhaps: but is this the same difficulty MGM and Peter Jackson are having in trying to make a Hobbit film or films after making The Lord of the Rings?
Not sure. For me, the question might be: why didn't PJ make The Hobbit movies first? Answer: LOTR is more popular. But even if the books were never written and PJ thought up the movies himself, I think it would be hard to add a prequel like The Hobbit. It always is.

Thanks for all the thought-provoking questions.


dernwyn
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 20 2012, 12:40am

Post #3 of 6 (817 views)
Shortcut
You'd get rid of the Fox? [In reply to] Can't Post

But - but - he's an integral part of the LotR story! Without him, how would we know that hobbits sleeping out under the stars is something "unnatural", a hint that their lives will soon be tossed upside-down?

Wink

When first pondering the question of which version better fits the tone of The Hobbit, I thought the earlier version did; but considering the entire context, as you noted, the scarier Gollum does seem more in line with the Trolls, and warg/goblin confrontation, and spiders than does the "kinder, gentler" version.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I desired dragons with a profound desire"

"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915




Otaku-sempai
Half-elven


Aug 20 2012, 8:06pm

Post #4 of 6 (784 views)
Shortcut
There was a reason why the LotR films were made first... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
For me, the question might be: why didn't PJ make The Hobbit movies first? Answer: LOTR is more popular. But even if the books were never written and PJ thought up the movies himself, I think it would be hard to add a prequel like The Hobbit. It always is.



Peter Jackson set out to adapt The Hobbit first, with Mirimax. At the time, there was some dispute with the filmrights for The Hobbit, but Jackson was free and clear to start work on The Lord of the Rings instead.

"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house." - Aragorn


sador
Half-elven


Aug 26 2012, 9:39am

Post #5 of 6 (764 views)
Shortcut
Late answers [In reply to] Can't Post

A. Does the average reader of The Hobbit catch that this is the first time that Gollum refers to the ring, rather than himself, as “my precious”?
I think so. It's rather heavy-handed.

B. Why does Bilbo intrude on Gollum’s personal misery?
Maybe he found it?


More probably, he's tired, hungry, lost. feels he won the contest fairly (erm...) and is impatient by the delay.

C. Would Gollum have figured it out without Bilbo’s intervention here?
Perhaps, perhaps not. We never really find out the Rings' exact powers over Gollum.


D. Do the additions – consistent with LotR, but irrelevant to Bilbo’s adventure – violate the rule of not telling more story than you have to?
The story of the "Master" might be, a bit. But the bit about killing the little squeaker will come up later, and the bit about the Ring's addictive qualities foreshadows the Arkenstone.

E. Given the parameters, do you see any other ways Tolkien could have accomplished his goal here?
Me? No. But I'm no author.

How much does the reader have to know, that Bilbo doesn’t know, at any given point?
As much as the narrator wants him to.


F. How does Tolkien seem to choose when to have his characters think silently, in dialogue form, and when to have the narrator state the thoughts in the third person, as in this instance?
Whichever sounds best? I don't know.

G. Why didn’t Gollum stick to this approach during the game, when he could have?
It didn't occur to him that the respectable gentleman Mr. Baggins would cheat. A common misapprehension by those of a lower class.

Bilbo's "foolishly" telling Gollum his name has paid off!

H. Is this kind of combative verbal behavior characteristic of Bilbo?
I think so. Don't you?

I. Does Bilbo really care at this point? Why ask again?
To deflect the question Gollum asked him.

J. Since this is the same thought process that led him to ask the final game-winning “riddle”, is it possible that Bilbo actually does not know what it is that he has in his pocket?
Yes, I suppose he is flustered enough to have forgotten for the moment.

K. Is this the time and place for Bilbo to be thinking like this, as he runs for his life?
No. So what? Thought processes are not determined logically.
See Tristram Shandy for plenty of examples.

Why did he not think this through while Gollum was trying to guess his question/riddle, or the two earlier times that Gollum asked him afterwards?
Bilbo is a feeler, not a thinker.

L. Again, is this as plausible as we might like? (I.e., try sticking your hand into your pocket where a ring is, while running fast. See what happens.)
The whole scenario is implausible - I mean the part about me running fast...

But you are right, it is quite implausible; with hindsight, it seems creepy and even ominous.
However, in the rush of the moment, the reader is more likely to be thankful for this.

M. What does it mean to “see in the dark”?
Just what it says.

And does that ability have any connection with the ability of eyes to give off light?
No.

N. Why does Gollum not hear Bilbo fall, or smell him as he runs past him?
Yes, this makes little sense. I don't think Gollum's ability to see in the dark is enought to dull other senses, as ours above ground.

O. What is wrong with monologuing?
Boring.

P. How does this debate relate to the famous Stinker/Slinker debates that Gollum engages in during the journey with Frodo and Sam in The Lord of the Rings? Do Gollum A and Gollum B as separate speakers (A and B are simply my terms of reference) represent anything?
Not really. It's just a more interesting way of monologuing.
Talking to oneself, as Gandalf will say in The White Rider, is a habit of the old; and Gollum is old.

Q. How does this method of exposition serve as a way for Bilbo to find out what the ring’s power is, compared to what we saw was in the original version: Gollum simply tells Bilbo what the ring can do.
Better. The whole "present" version is absolutely fantastic - worse than the incroguity of saying that picking trolls' pockets is the easiest way to begin burglaring, and then saying that trolls' purses are the mischief.

R. If overhearing vital information from bad guy conversation is a classic device in adventure genre fiction, how does Tolkien make the device his own here? Or does he?
This is a bit more plausible than the usual way.

S. Where else does Tolkien use this device?
Ugluk and Grishnakh, Gorbag and Shagrat, the sergeant and the tracker.
Also Gandalf listening to the Wargs.

Are the instances comparable, and is their frequency and variety acceptable to the reader?
Maybe Gandalf is; but there is no such monolgue that I recall at the moment (out of The Lay of Leithan).

T. This has come up in some rather scholarly articles, but which “old old tales” involve a ring of invisibility?
I don't remember any at the moment.

U. Why does the narrator justify Bilbo’s failure to be honest with Gollum, who has just honestly apologized for failing to produce the present?
Lest readers will notice how dishonest Bilbo is later with Thorin.

V. Is the sword/knife supposed to be so small, that both Bilbo and Gollum doubt its ability to settle the matter between them in a pinch?
Bilbo knows he does not know how to use the sword; fortunately, Gollum doesn't.

W. Is it an irresistible temptation to try an invisibility ring out?
He didn't trust Gollum. That a monster who wants to eat him would freely offer this kind of Ring? Even Bilbo would not credit this wildly improbable possibility without checking it out.

Doesn’t your sudden disappearance kind of give away the trick?
Yes.
Fool him once, shame on Bilbo; fool him twice, shame on Gollum!

X. It might be silly or meaningless to ask, which do you prefer?
The older what is really cute. But wildly improbable - even more than the rest of the book.

Or is it more fair to ask which is more consistent with the tone of The Hobbit as it is largely written?
The older version fits better first part of the book (up to Lake-town); the new version fits the last chapters.

Y. Is it an indication of the difficulty of updating The Hobbit to LotR’s “standards” that the new chapter is five pages longer than the old, and far more complex in its interior plot line and narrative style?
Not really; it's an indication of Tolkien's tendency to expand while rewriting. I'm sure the 1960 Hobbit would have taken twice as long had it been completed.

Z. Not fair perhaps: but is this the same difficulty MGM and Peter Jackson are having in trying to make a Hobbit film or films after making The Lord of the Rings?
No comment. Too scary.


"In the morning Bilbo misses breakfast. – is this the most unbelievable part of this chapter?"
- Elven



The weekly discussion of The Hobbit is back. Join us in the Reading Room for a somewhat less clever discussion of Queer Lodgings!


squire
Valinor


Aug 26 2012, 1:34pm

Post #6 of 6 (858 views)
Shortcut
Thank you [In reply to] Can't Post

for your late answers; and for blowing back when my questioning becomes too obsessive and even pointless!

I feel that there are conventions to story-telling that we all accept when we enjoy the story overall, but less so when we aren't enjoying the story as much. Yet why we enjoy a story or not may depend on many factors that are outside the writer's control, no matter how hard he or she works to draw us into the story-world. We in this discussion are Tolkien fans who've read The Lord of the Rings, most likely multiple times and most likely a lot more often than we read The Hobbit. We bring to our reading of this chapter unbreakable conceptions about Gollum, the Ring, Bilbo, fantasy, the role of child-like emotions compared to literary sophistication in appreciating Tolkien's legendarium, and a host of other pre-existing conditions.

Thus our disagreements here about which is more "likely" or "believable": Original-Gollum as evil but ultimately beneficent gift-giver (as comic as the trolls and the Great Goblin in the early chapters, or the Elves' banter and Smaug's glittering jibes in the middle chapters) or Revised-Gollum as evil and treacherous slave to the One Ring which is in search of its Master (as serious as the Elven King's imprisonment of the Dwarves in the middle chapters, or Bard's grimness and Thorin's rage at the loss of the Arkenstone in the later chapters). We do not and cannot say which is better storytelling, because there is no such thing as objectivity when reading a story that has two co-existing but more or less internally consistent versions!



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd (and NOW the 4th too!) TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.

 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.