Tolkien made significant changes to the Gollum chapter. In the first edition Gollum gives up the ring willingly. The ring was not yet the Ring, and Gollum was not yet a Hobbit.

The man took retcons as an intellectual challenge. Sometimes the retcon itself spun off a whole new story. But it makes The Hobbit really incompatible with its own sequel, even after his changes. (You have to read it as having a very unreliable narrator.)

▲

chrismorgan an hour ago | parent | next [-]

From the prologue of The Lord of the Rings:

> Now it is a curious fact that this is not the story as Bilbo first told it to his companions. To them his account was that Gollum had promised to give him a present, if he won the game; but when Gollum went to fetch it from his island he found the treasure was gone: a magic ring, which had been given to him long ago on his birthday. Bilbo guessed that this was the very ring that he had found, and as he had won the game, it was already his by right. But being in a tight place, he said nothing about it, and made Gollum show him the way out, as a reward instead of a present. This account Bilbo set down in his memoirs, and he seems never to have altered it himself, not even after the Council of Elrond. Evidently it still appeared in the original Red Book, as it did in several of the copies and abstracts. But many copies contain the true account (as an alternative), derived no doubt from notes by Frodo or Samwise, both of whom learned the truth, though they seem to have been unwilling to delete anything actually written by the old hobbit himself.

▲

boringg 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Clarifying question -- what do you mean Gollum was not yet a Hobbit? I don't think he ever was - but a river folk before the ring deprived him wasn't he? I never read first edition so I suspect there are some differences as you allude. (ring not being the ring).

Actually - in the creative process did he kick off the Hobbit then expand into the world building as an after thought and turn the one ring into this wild expansive creative endeavor? I always assumed it had been pre-built in his mind then spilled out in ink (As a sequence of events).

▲

reincarnate0x14 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In the original version, there is minimal physical description of Gollum (it was dark after all) and the ring was simply a magic ring that granted invisibility. Gollum lost it and IIRC he just let Bilbo go. They whole idea of him being some hobbit-like creature corrupted by the One Ring was not present at all. It was one of a series of fairy-tale adventures no more important than the trolls turning to stone. Bilbo needed a way to sneak around Smaug, so he found a magic ring.

It's doubtless still possible to find that version, I read it in an old country library that had it on the shelf since the 1950s.

	▲	bombcar an hour ago \| parent [-]
		https://www.ttrpbc.com/discussion/532/the-hobbit-first-vs-se... has the changes.

▲

throaway198512 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Gollum was a river hobbit corrupted by the ring

▲

duskwuff 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> You have to read it as having a very unreliable narrator.

Perhaps even Bilbo himself. :) One can imagine him telling a heavily fictionalized version of his adventures to some impressionable young hobbits.

	▲	jfengel 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Indeed: the intro to The Lord of the Rings explains that previous editions of The Hobbit, where the ring was a gift rather, were Bilbo's original lie to cover up the theft. Perhaps that was all the influence of the Ring itself.
	▲	lakkal an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That's how I've always imagined it - The Hobbit as published is the story told as if intended for children (hobbit or otherwise), but the 'actual' in-universe events were just as dark and realistic as the tone of The Lord of the Rings.

▲

singpolyma3 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

As I understand it he planned to do more retcons but the publisher just sort of ran with the example he sent them.