Well, I think that we have to consider the abbreviated version found at the end of Appendix A of LotR to be the final version of the tale of Thorin and Gandalf's first meeting. At least where differences between the variants can be found. The versions in Unfinished Tales and The Annotated Hobbit benefit from being told from Gandalf's perspective and include much detail that was ommited from the short version.

The more dry version of Appendix A is probably more in-line with LotR, being far less chatty. This really does seem more like Gandalf of The Hobbit, by comparison. Both versions are effective, in their ways.

The tonal differences and intended audiences for TH versus LotR means that there will always be some apparent discontinuities between the two works. "The Quest of Erebor" does smooth over some of those.

In Tolkien's Council, Elrond was much more supportive of Gandalf than he was in the film version. This is especially evident in AUJ. I think that most of the politicking consisted of internal strife within the White Council.

I think it's a nice approach to look at this 'tale' as patching The Hobbit into both LOTR and SIlmarillion. Tolkien tries this in 2 ways:

1) Giving Gandalf geo-political reasons for helping the dwarves and Bilbo with their quest
2) Elaborating on Bilbo being 'meant to find the Ring'

Its amusing to think that not only are Bilbo and the Dwarves completely unaware of these agendas, but to a large extent, so was Tolkien himself when he wrote The Hobbit!

The geo-politics works well for me: I can imagine Gandalf pondering an alliance between Sauron and Smaug, and the general under-preparedness of the North. It seems reasonable that this didn't come up in TH: Bilbo is too naive an adventurer, and the dwarves are too busy with their parochial concerns. It's no to so much that Gandalf manipulates them - it's more that their wishes and concerns happen to dovetail into his wider cares.
Your piece on Narrative Voices is a great basis for thought here: the two contrasting voices in TH and LOTR are consistent with the proportion and reveal of political and deeper undertone I think...the jaunty TH narrator, taking breaks and addressing the reader, is not the voice in which the world politics are told: especially helpful as the author had not invented them yet!

I'm less comfortable with the predestination side of things. If everyone is a piece in a divine game plan, a lot of the drama goes out of LOTR - see, they were never really in danger, Eru would have fixed it somehow anyway... A second problem is that Gandalf has to know (or 'feel in his heart' ) enough but not too much, and not too soon. He has to be perilously slow on the uptake about what Bilbo's Ring really is and how dangerous it is, what should be done with it. Otherwise, he should have got an expedition to Mt Doom going much earlier. But, there's a converse problem - the Wizards are the Valar's key Anti-Sauron force. If they are made to operate too much in the dark, doesn't that become problematic too? It could start to look like a crazily over-elaborate plan (or a rather mean trick to dump your Special Advisors into Middle-earth with such poor instructions)! So it's a delicate balance - one which I'm left feeling has not quite been pulled off here, though I'm struggling to say quite what is amiss. Perhaps I would prefer to have Gandalf more pleased with himself about his geo-political cleverness, but more rueful that he was caught on the hop by the Ring.
This concern relates back to the free will bit I think...Gandalf does seem to take it all as a near shave: saying the Queen in Gondor (and the victory she represents) could not have happened without a chance meeting near Bree. So a smatter of not as much presdestination as undiscerned foreknowledge on part of Gandalf/Olorin? So much does depend on that sense of Gandalf's: like the holding of the map and Key without knowledge of their value until the most opportune moment (thank you, Jack Sparrow). Of course like Saruman Gandalf had choices to make...he just seems to have made the right ones. Saruman in the same shoes: an odd key from a grubby beggar - perhaps cast aside with disdain; and then dragonfire in the War of the Ring?

"Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker and you therefore were meant to bear it. And I might have added: and I was meant to guide you both to those points."

"As far as [Thorin] was concerned [hobbits] were just food-growers who happened to work the fields on either side of the Dwarves' ancestral road to the Mountains."

What seemed truly peculiar was Thorin's criticism of Bilbo about being too soft: "His mother died too soon." I tried to think of any Tolkien characters getting that personal in their criticism in any of his published works, and couldn't think of anything. "Saruman, you were molested as a child. Denethor, your dead wife was an ugly harlot." Normally the invective is less a punch in the stomach than that. Didn't Tolkien's own mother "die too soon?" Is that something mean little kids said to him at school?

Thanks for leading this chapter, Brethil! (Thanks for popping in!)

This is a great chapter for getting more insight into both LOTR and TH. I like the idea of everyone living in a big house in Minas Tirith after Aragorn's coronation and Gandalf telling old stories to satisfy their curiosity. How many of us would jump at the chance to be there and ask our own questions? How true! In that sense it is a lovely picture, a continuance of eucatastrophe in the sweetest sense: the enjoyment of the rewards among friends. Gandalf presumably does the same with Tom Bombadil as well...


It seems to me that LOTR and TH need many bridges between them once you start looking at them. For one thing, The Hobbit is a fun tale at a brisk pace that doesn't stand up to lots of analysis like LOTR does. It doesn't make much sense that Thorin takes Bilbo on the quest with them: he's not a Dwarf, he's too tame, and what exactly is a burglar supposed to do, steal one gold cup at a time from Smaug and hope he doesn't notice his treasure mound is disappearing? Why would Thorin even agree to give Bilbo 1/14th share of all the enormous loot? Very much agreed here. The initial conceit of TH is in its voice I think: the need for a Burglar, and the choice of the unlikely Bilbo and the poetical '1/14 Share' is never explained because it doesn't need to be. Only later, after its inclusion with the larger world does it suddenly stick out like a sore thumb! In which case the background of the Divine as crafted in the Sil suddenly becomes a very useful stage-cloth to run up the ropes.


And it's nice to have Tolkien say explicitly what many of us read into LOTR about fate and presumably the hand of Eru:

Quote

It's revealing that Gandalf includes himself in the arc of fate in this statement, as if he's an instrument, and not the prime mover. As you say, he lacks clear divine direction and is groping his way as an Istar. That one statement connects The Sil, TH, and LOTR very nicely. The hand of Eru, and/or the Valar. Yes a nice bit of very useful text; in that way this tale does yeoman's service is uniting TH and actually using it as a bridge from old to new. JRRT wrote how the perspectives changed through time (Elvish to Hobbitish/Mannish) on a continuum - and this feels like a mix of Elvish tone (including archaic knowledge) while describing Hobbitish events. A unique bit of telescoping on JRRT's part maybe?

Another big reveal I like in this chapter is the racial perspective:

Quote

I have to wonder as a reader how the hobbits go unnoticed by the big players in M-earth when they do clutter up a significant part of a major highway. Thorin's view helps explain that. That's a good point: we discuss in your next chapter on how even Khamul (a local) didn't seem to know about the Shire. The concept of mere size and quietness can't seem to explain the hidden nature of the Hobbit-world: instead, are they the noticed yet disregarded little people, because of their perceived lack of usefulness in dynastic ambitions by the people travelling by: Dwarves ousted and eyes only for Erebor, Nazgul who disregard any but the perceived strongest and corruptible? In which case the humbleness of Gandalf seems to be highlighted here, even in the negative, for recognizing their worth even if not in any present or applicable sense to him.

---

Have an idea relating to the world of JRR Tolkien that you would like to write about? If so, the Third TORn Amateur Symposium will be running in the Reading Room April, 2014. *The Call for Submissions is up*!

So no, I don't like this chapter much; and I think even with the benefit of hindsight Gandalf's statement that Sauron would have done better to assail Rivendell and Lorien makes no sense. So there would be no Queen in Gondor; and what then? Was there any prophecy regarding her, or was Arwen absolutely crucial for the World of Men to be free, more important than Gondor and Rohan's physical survival? Maybe; but I'm not aware of Tolkien explaining this anywhere. I think that here it is the existence of the Queen in Gondor as a symbol, and not about Arwen herself: it means that House of Elendil has returned to the throne and that the kingdom has hope again in a growing line (unlike the older Kings, who turned instead towards the tombs and ancestor worship). But I have no text for this either, just my interpretation of what the Queen means, regardless of who she is.


And one answer:
Reiterating the idea that Gandalf lacks clear foreknowledge and divine direction? What other purpose do you see for that verbal sparring match between Gandalf and Thorin, set up with the changes in Bilbo, the fussy bachelor Hobbit?
Well Gandalf has divine direction; it's just subconcious.
But in The Hobbit, the dwarves are somewhat ridiculous; fancy setting out on such a trip unarmed, and without any plan (until Gandalf remembers the map)! Thorin's concerns here reflect his having evolved to a grand, heroic character. So the only ridiculous character is Bilbo.
Yes, quite true: an inevitable price, I think, of the maturing of TH as a tale to dovetail with LOTR and Sil! That initial concept of the bachelor Burglar, so fitting for a fairytale, takes a lot of explaining in the Big Grand Scheme! Exactly what I was feeling when I read this tale and though about how much it does neatly plot-fill; yet the very essential bit of Bilbo the Burglar can only be really repaired with the deus ex machina of the divinity and subconscious knowledge of Gandalf.

That's a tricky balance, isn't it, Precious? Oh, wait, wrong narrative voice. It is tricksy precious.

Anyway, I agree with Wiz that if everything is "meant" to happen, then it's like hitting the Play button on a simple animation and watching it work: interesting, but not suspenseful since the outcome will always be the same.

But you bring up choices, Brethil, and I wonder how much that tempers the "Eru-designed animation." How far do we take these meant's? Were Deagol and Smeagol meant to find it too? I suspect they were, and Smeagol made some pretty bad choices according to his nature. Bilbo could have killed Smeagol when he had the chance, and there would be some karmic justice in that since Smeagol had killed Deagol over the Ring, but he chose otherwise. What if he had killed Smeagol and then continued on his quest--would he have become more Gollum-like as a Ring-bearer over time? Would he have become an outcast, or maybe a reclusive old man holed up in Bag Eng the way Gollum was in the mountains, never adopting Frodo as his heir? (Or maybe eating him if he paid a social visit.)
All-in-all the 'meant' idea seems to require an omniscient power that lives out of Time (as Terazed has given us wonderful insight on): we have both those conditions not entirely with the Valar but certainly with Eru. I think maybe The Outside of Time view - timeless giving the one-piece, tapestry view of events - allows that even with choices made within time adjustments can be made by the divine. Had Bilbo chosen 'poorly', since the view outside of time gives the longer and linear game view, another thing may have been 'meant' to happen? As with Ulmo, it could be a small, select and strategic bit of 'meant' that really packs a punch - but only IF you have the long view and know exactly just the right point to make a small change!


I think it's significant that Frodo chooses to give up the Ring at least twice (to Gandalf and Galadriel). Yes, he would have found it harder to do than to say, but for someone who's selected by fate to walk the Ring from Bag Eng to Mt. Doom, he didn't seem to wholly buy into that role. Its like that political ideal that those who seek power are the lest qualified for it (which I do think JRRT agreed with!) An inherent contradiction.