When Tolkien had gotten a fair way into the sequel to The Hobbit, it became apparent that the Ring would become the link between the stories, and take on the significance of being The One Ring To Rule Them All, created by Sauron, who only appeared in The Hobbit as a mention of the shadowy Necromancer, no more than a plot point to justify Gandalf leaving the Company. Meanwhile, a second edition of The Hobbit was in the works, and in addition to making minor revisions, Tolkien played around with a new story regarding how Bilbo got the Ring, which was more consistent with the emerging nature of the Ring (and a much better and powerful story, in my opinion). He sent the new version to the publisher along with the revisions to be made for the second edition in order to get the publisher's opinion. But there was a miscommunication and without any further contact, the new story was incorporated into the text along with the revisions, as Tolkien learned to his surprise when he received the proofs for the second edition. At that point, however, he decided to let the new story go forward, which in my opinion was the right decision, both in order to make the older book more consistent with the emerging sequel (which still would not be published for almost another decade), and to make The Hobbit a better book on its own.
However, despite the change to Riddles in the Dark, the role of the Ring did not change at all for the rest of the book. It remains to this day in all published (and unpublished) versions of The Hobbit simply a magic ring that allows Bilbo to become invisible at convenient moments. It serves the purpose, as Tom Shippey points out, of evening the field, so to speak, to allow Bilbo to achieve his own special form of heroism.
Tolkien did, of course, begin a revision in 1960 with the purpose of bringing The Hobbit more in line with The Lord of the Rings. However, that revision only got part way through the third chapter, so we don't know what, if any, further changes he might have made to the fifth chapter, Riddles in the Dark (very few, I suspect), or to the role of the Ring in the further chapters.
However, while nowhere in any published (or unpublished) version The Hobbit does Tolkien describe or reference any effect that The Ring has on Bilbo, other than making him invisible, in The Lord of the Ring, he cleverly explains the existence different published versions of Bilbo obtaining the Ring by pointing out how out of character it was for Bilbo to tell a false version.
First in the Prologue:
And then in conversation between Gandalf and Frodo at the end of the first chapter, before Gandalf goes off to find out the truth about the Ring:Gandalf, however, disbelieved Bilbo's first story, as soon as he heard it, and he continued to be very curious about the ring. Eventually he got the true tale out of Bilbo after much questioning, which for a while strained their friendship; but the wizard seemed to think the truth important. Though he did not say so to Bilbo, he also thought it important, and disturbing, to find that the good hobbit had not told the truth from the first: quite contrary to his habit. The idea of a 'present' was not mere hobbitlike invention, all the same. It was suggested to Bilbo, as he confessed, by Gollum's talk that he overheard; for Gollum did, in fact, call the ring his 'birthday present', many times. That also Gandalf thought strange and suspicious; but he did not discover the truth in this point for many more years, as will be seen in this book.
Moreover, The Hobbit as published is purportedly Bilbo's memoir, the first part of The Red Book. As Gandalf is quoted as saying in "The Quest of Erebor," "But you know how things went, at any rate as Bilbo saw them. The story would sound rather different, if I had written it." He was talking specifically about how fatuous the Dwarves found Bilbo, and how angry they were at Gandalf for springing this ridiculous Hobbit on them, but I believe that he equally could have been talking about the negative effect that using the Ring would have had on Bilbo. Not, of course, nearly as strong of an effect as it later had on Frodo as Sauron regained his strength, and Frodo approached Mordor, but I don't buy that it would not have had any effect on him at all, even though in his own version of the story, he understandably does not report it having any.‘What do you know already?’
‘Only what Bilbo told me. I have heard his story: how he found it, and how he used it: on his journey, I mean.’
‘Which story, I wonder,’ said Gandalf.
‘Oh, not what he told the dwarves and put in his book,’ said Frodo. ‘He told me the true story soon after I came to live here. He said you had pestered him till he told you, so I had better know too. "No secrets between us, Frodo," he said; "but they are not to go any further. It’s mine anyway."‘
‘That’s interesting,’ said Gandalf. ‘Well, what did you think of it all?’
‘If you mean, inventing all that about a "present", well, I thought the true story much more likely, and I couldn’t see the point of altering it at all. It was very unlike Bilbo to do so, anyway; and I thought it rather odd.’
Which brings us to the films (remember the films? this is after all the forum dedicated to the films). In An Unexpected Journey, we saw some signs of the filmmakers ramping up the emphasis on the Ring, primarily with the heavy handed view of the Ring leaving Gollum, and the (fairly ridiculous) reprising of the scene in which the Ring drops onto Bilbo's finger, mimicking the scene in which the same thing happened to Frodo in Bree, in the FOTR film. They also showed a version of the "Ring World" but as Jackson acknowledged in the commentary, it was a less intense and less threatening version of the Ring World, as befitting the lesser threat that The Ring and its Master represent at this point. And there is also the scene in the extended edition in which Bilbo sees the Ring on Sauron's hand in the mural at Rivendell.
Now we have a number of reports about DoS which suggest that a large part of the characterization of Bilbo is related to the pull that the Ring exerts on him. In a straight adaptation of The Hobbit, this would obviously be inappropriate, but in the type of adaptation that the filmmakers are doing, which attempts to place the story more firmly in the same world of LOTR, it is more apt. We saw in the first film that Bilbo's "arc" in which he goes from the fairly inept Hobbit to someone that Dwarves rely on is compressed into a shorter timeline, and has largely already been accomplished. In this film, it sounds like the emphasis with regard to his characterization is more about the Ring. A lot of people find this worrisome, and I can understand why, but I see a couple of reasons why it could be very effective. First of all, some of the most moving parts of the LOTR films was the effect that the Ring had on Frodo, particularly in Mordor. I think in the hands of Martin Freeman (who I consider a much superior actor than Elijah Wood) and with a more subtle narrative (since the Ring effect can mot be nearly as severe), it could really be compelling. Plus, I can see it providing an interesting counterpoint to the developing dragon sickness in Thorin, as portrayed by the also-excellent Richard Armitage. And, as I have tried to point out in this post, such an idea seems like the natural progression in the continuing journey of The One Ring in The Hobbit.
Obviously, I reserve judgment until I see the film, but I am hopeful that this will provide a compelling storyline in this film.
What say you?
And I am quite interested to get your take (both now, and after tomorrow, assuming things go as planned).
