A question for Tolkien nerds

[LnGrrrR]

Hey guys, I'm reading the Lord of the Rings books, and I was wondering...

Do you think the ring leading to evil was something Tolkien had planned all along, even in the Hobbit? Or was it decided after the fact, when he wanted to expand upon the world?

It kinda reminds me of the whole Luke/Leia sister thing.

[angrydude]

I'm pretty sure the hobbit was written after the lord of the rings trilogy.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

ehhh i heard he had just made a bunch of euro-style languages then decided he needed to create a world of races by which he could use his languages.

[TheProfessor]

Good summary here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit#Revisions

[E20]

I heard that the way he came up with Bilbo, was because it rhymed with Dildo.

[El Jefe]

I think Tolkien wasn't even sure of the path of the Lord of the Rings when he started it, much less back when he was writing the Hobbit.

I seem to recall a do entary saying that he went through several revisions of the first few chapters, before finally plowing ahead with a sort of "I'll figure it out as I go along" sort of at ude. Which explains why there is so much meandering at the beginning.

[LnGrrrR]

Thanks all. It does seem like the ring was just a magical ring in the Hobbit, and was then retrofitted as the One ring. I've read the Hobbit once or twice, but never got through the Lord of the Rings. Working on it now...

[FaithInOne]

audio book it dude

[z0sa]

Thanks all. It does seem like the ring was just a magical ring in the Hobbit, and was then retrofitted as the One ring. I've read the Hobbit once or twice, but never got through the Lord of the Rings. Working on it now...

some foreshadowing occurs in the Hobbit, but it really depends on your interpretation if you want to believe LOTR was predominantly 'retrofitted.' Enjoying a love of writing myself, I can tell you it tends to be a mix of both when you base current material off previous material, even if you have a clear set of ideas they can quickly change course. I can try to remember ...

Sauron's (the 'Necromancer' in the Hobbit) escape from Mirkwood is imminent in the Hobbit, and is part of the reason Gandalf leaves the party before they enter into it (I'm fairly sure he was gathering with rangers and elves to keep Sauron imprisoned a short while longer). This, to me, is the ultimate prediction of true evil's return in LotR. Yet Sauron is never directly met, quoted, his actions described, etc. He is simply an all-seeing eye atop Barad-Dur. Basically, you have to understand that Sauron is symbolic of true evil in LotR, while the One Ring constantly represents the temptation of Good to use that true evil to further Good - except evil never furthers good (much of LotR is about the 'holiness' of nature and the benefits of pacifism)

The ring's power over its wearer is denoted very early in the sort of symbiotic relationship Gollum creates. A normal ring causing invisibility would not be referred to as 'my precious' over and over nor would it cause the type of grief Gollum exhibits when Bilbo uses it to outsmart him if it was only needed for help finding food. Additionally, the ring is directly attributed for Gollum's unnatural long life beneathe the mountains. Gandalf refers to it as one of the great rings very early on after discovering its nature, but it is not discovered as the One ring until FotR.

IMO, Tolkien very much planned on that Ring playing a major part in his future works.

[S_A_Longhorn]

audio book it dude

They made some movies about the books. If you find them, just watch them instead. I heard they were kind of good.

[FaithInOne]

Nah, they left a lot of stuff out of the movies that were in the books. I've tried to make it through reading the trilogy, but always lose interest. Unabridged audio book though, that's where it's at

Movies were great though.

[BlackSwordsMan]

fly you fools!

[LnGrrrR]

some foreshadowing occurs in the Hobbit, but it really depends on your interpretation if you want to believe LOTR was predominantly 'retrofitted.' Enjoying a love of writing myself, I can tell you it tends to be a mix of both when you base current material off previous material, even if you have a clear set of ideas they can quickly change course. I can try to remember ...

Sauron's (the 'Necromancer' in the Hobbit) escape from Mirkwood is imminent in the Hobbit, and is part of the reason Gandalf leaves the party before they enter into it (I'm fairly sure he was gathering with rangers and elves to keep Sauron imprisoned a short while longer). This, to me, is the ultimate prediction of true evil's return in LotR. Yet Sauron is never directly met, quoted, his actions described, etc. He is simply an all-seeing eye atop Barad-Dur. Basically, you have to understand that Sauron is symbolic of true evil in LotR, while the One Ring constantly represents the temptation of Good to use that true evil to further Good - except evil never furthers good (much of LotR is about the 'holiness' of nature and the benefits of pacifism)

The ring's power over its wearer is denoted very early in the sort of symbiotic relationship Gollum creates. A normal ring causing invisibility would not be referred to as 'my precious' over and over nor would it cause the type of grief Gollum exhibits when Bilbo uses it to outsmart him if it was only needed for help finding food. Additionally, the ring is directly attributed for Gollum's unnatural long life beneathe the mountains. Gandalf refers to it as one of the great rings very early on after discovering its nature, but it is not discovered as the One ring until FotR.

IMO, Tolkien very much planned on that Ring playing a major part in his future works.

From what I've read online, it's been said that the first edition of the Hobbit had the Gollum and Bilbo parting rather amicably. So I think they changed the character of Gollum around slightly, but it wasn't like Tolkien went of his way to stretch the plot or anything. The 'retrofitting', to me, feels rather natural.