[Paracompact]

> (I’m aware some people think the original version didn’t specify his size. But the 1937 text states “Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum, a small slimy creature.”)

This directly contradicts the article. I found the first edition online, and have determined you are mistaken.

http://searcherr.work/The%20Hobbit%201st%20ed%20(1937).pdf

Page 83: "Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum. I don't know where he came from, nor who or what he was."

Mind explaining the source of your mistake?

[zimpenfish]

Also (referencing a side comment) the only mention of the size of Gollum's boat in that PDF (and it may not even be his boat - I'm not an expert on the source material, just going off mentions of "boat" near "Gollum") seems to be "little black boat" but that's pretty quickly followed by it fitting 4 people at a time which isn't all that "little", really, and I think the large Gollum in the illustration could fit in a 4 person boat (albeit in a perhaps top-heavy fashion.)

[belZaah]

Hats off for going to the Primary Source!

[sarchertech]

It’s not a primary source is a scan of a 2016 reprint that I can’t find much information on. And I she a version that purports to be the 1937 edition which does have the small slimy creature line.

https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Ho...

That version has the original “Gollum offers to give him the ring if he wins”.

[sarchertech]

https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Ho...

The version you linked is a 2016 reprint, so I’m actually not sure which one is correct.

The version I linked to still has Gollum offering to give Bilbo the ring so it certainly predates the modern version I have. And that is the change Tolkien explicitly states he made.

The version I linked has this "If it asks us, and we doesn't answer, we gives it a present, gollum!" Which I'm positive is only in the 1937 version. From what I can tell there were also minor corrections made before the 1951 changes, so I suppose it's possible that adding small slimy creature was one of those.

There are also reported to be dozens of different versions after 1951 caused by printers mixing and matching old and revised plates. I'm unsure exactly how that 1937 facsimile was recreated, or how the version I linked was created. One or both could have been taken from this mismatched versions.

I think the only way to be sure would be to buy a reprint from before 1951 or to find a scan of one online.

[Paracompact]

I see. This is a weird situation, then, and I apologize if I was abrasive.

Searching online ("Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum. I don't know") there are many hits for the line without "small and slimy creature." I assume it to be part of some legitimate edition, and I find it hard to believe this clarification would have been removed between editions, so with some confidence I conclude the original version did not have "small and slimy creature." Still, I understand your POV and appreciate your patience explaining it.

[sarchertech]

No worries. I wasn’t offended. Just surprised because I knew I had double checked.

Oh yeah I think it’s likely the very first version didn’t have it. But I’m much less sure about when it could have first popped up. I think it’s highly likely it showed up before the Swedish version. But I’m not very confident. Also it’s possible that the version Jansson was working from didn’t have it, even if a version of it with that text existed at the time.

[fifilura]

Why rude?

[quietbritishjim]

The comment it's replying to stated that 1937 quote as if they had checked it. That deception seems ruder to me the language in the comment you're talking about. But I do agree the last sentence could've been omitted while getting the core point across (but we're all only human).

[sarchertech]

https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Ho...

I did.

The version you posted is a 2016 reprint, I’m unsure which is correct.

[quietbritishjim]

Fair enough! (BTW I didn't post any version but your point stands.)

[sarchertech]

Also worth pointing out that I didn’t find the original correction rude unless there was an earlier version of the comment I didn’t see ;)

[Paracompact]

Not rude, just direct.

[edgyquant]

Nope, it’s rude and abrasive

[taneq]

Agree that the post comes across as rude in tone, but it’s never explicitly disparaging. Might just be an overly direct tone (non-native English speaker, or maybe on the spectrum?)

[fennecbutt]

Nah just sounds like people can't handle what they say being questioned as per usual. We should never take offense to being asked to clarify or explain when someone thinks we're wrong.

I'd only be vaguely offended if they had no grounded reason to think that I'm wrong (and they'd be calling me out for the sake of calling me out).

Communicating ideas is a part of tribalism too. Good brain chemicals when the tribe agrees and bad brain chemicals when they disagree.

[fifilura]

Yeah, my bad, after re-reading the original post. It was not particularly rude.

Apologies.

[fennecbutt]

Heya, I don't often come back and reply to people but I genuinely have to say I look up to your ability to change your mind, admit you were wrong and come out smiling.

We should all be more like you! <3