Wk. 2 Ch. 2 - Luck

[Sparrow]

When Bilbo produces the key to the trolls' cave, he says it "luckily" fell out of the troll's pocket. Also, Gandalf had reappeared just in time to save everyone from becoming the trolls' next meal. Are these actually examples of luck, or something else? What role does luck play in the story? Is something larger at work here?

[Hilary]

Tom Shippey makes some interesting suppositions regarding "luck" in Tolkien's work...both in The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was, as most of you probably know, a philologist and therefore used works very specifically, knowing all of their meanings and nuances.

The word "luck" is interesting, Shippey tells us, because

...no etymology of it is know. The OED suggests, without conviction, that it might come from the words like Old English (ge)lingan, 'to happen', giving then a basic meaning of 'happenstance, or whatever turns up'. Tolkien would have liked that, for it would make 'luck' a close modern equivalent of the Old English word usually translated 'fate'...

( The Road to Middle-Earth, Ch. 5, p. 152)

He also suggest that the Valar may actually be working through the "lucky" events that occur in Middle-earth, although in an indirect way, always leaving room for choice and free will. In Appendix A, Ch III of LotR , Tolkien tells us:

But at last there came about by chance a meeting between Gandalf and Thorin that changed all the fortunes of the House of Durin, and led to other and greater ends beside.

(my emphasis).

So was it "lucky" that Gandalf met up with Thorin; that Gandalf perhaps recalled young Bilbo, Belladonna Took's son; that Bilbo was at home that morning Gandalf stopped by; that Bilbo picked up the key that so "luckily" fell out of the troll's pocket? Did the Valar help engineer the circumstances, but leave the rest up to the free will of the individuals involved?

I like to think that "something larger" is at work... we see more examples of Bilbo's "luck" as we get further into the story.

[Greenleaf]

I'm almost sure that something larger is at work, as every incident of "luck" seems to lead to certain outcomes both in the Hobbit and in LotR (and in the Silmarillion as well, I think). And if I remember correctly, didn't Gandalf said to Frodo that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring and Frodo himself was meant to be the Ringbearer?

It seems to me that fate is at work throughout the stories but that doesn't mean each person is just a pawn in the hands of fate. I think Tolkien has emphasized more than once the importance of each person's choices and how they affect the various courses that fate may or may not follow.

[Stormrider]

It was lucky that the key fell out of the Troll's pocket BEFORE they turned to stone!

But perhaps fate did play a role in that luck, too. The Elvish blades and Bilbo's sword were found in that Troll cave and they played major rolls later in the story and into LOTR.

But if it was fate, something higher up (Eru or the Valar) would have had to allowed for this fate to have happened--or have set the stage for it to have happened.

Was there a reason that these particular blades would have been chosen by the gods over other blades?

We all are aware that LOTR was not in the works when The Hobbit was written, so I think the fact that they were Elvish made and finely tooled and decorated was the point that Tolkien was making. A fine bit of Elvish magic adds to the story very nicely.

[Greenleaf]

If I'm not mistaken, after LotR was published Tolkien made some changes in the Hobbit in order to make it more consistent to LotR. I think that the first edition of the Hobbit was a bit different from the one we read today. I suppose the discovery of the elvish swords in the troll cave might have happened from the start, in order to add a bit of elvish magic to the story as Stormrider says, but it's likely that more specific information about the swords, that they once belonged to the High Elves and were made in Gondolin, was added later to the story.

[FIUT]

This matter of "luck" bothers me to a considerable extent. Just what is "luck" and how does Tolkien use this concept in his various written works? Although my own thoughts are scarcely more than formative on this issue, I have a strong suspicion that the matter will prove to be more complex than seems evident on the surface. I suppose I am wondering here whether "luck" -- as found originally in The Hobbit -- is quite a different commodity from the sort of "luck" found later in the LOTR, and in the chapter length explanatory text "The Quest of Erebor" (in the Unfinished Tales)?

I must, initially, thank Hilary for taking the trouble to define the term for us (in its lexical sense from the OED), and then I'll propose an expansion of its meaning, or at least an expansion of its use: luck can be just a fortuitous set of random happenings, a matter of blind chance; luck can also be a personal characteristic (as with Lief "the lucky" Erickson, or Felix the Cat); and finally luck can be a deliberately purposeful chain of guided events that are designed to secure some goal, or final end (a sort of teleological luck).

Here I think Shippey, as quoted by Hilary, glosses over these distinctions, ignores luck as a personal attribute, and leaps too quickly to the conclusion that the basic meaning "'happenstance, or whatever turns up'" is a "close modern equivalent of the Old English word usually translated 'fate'..." Regarding just the "two lucks" that Shippey does address -- luck as "happenstance," and luck as "fate" -- I find that both are always quite distinctive (at least in my mind). Luck only becomes fate when there is a guiding consciousness behind the events, a directing will. Do we have strong evidence for the existence of such a "directing will" (divine intervention?) behind the obviously "lucky" sequence of events that occur to/ for Bilbo in The Hobbit? I am not certain that we do. I think the term "luck" (as we find it in The Hobbit) is quite a separate matter from the "destinies" we see associated with Frodo; and Bilbo's "luck" has few, if any aspects of the kind of Fate we find in the LOTR..

Keep in mind, as Greenleaf mentions, that The Hobbit was not intentionally designed as a prologue, or even a prelude to LOTR, it was an independent story, a larking, whimsical, enticing attempt on JRRT's part to create a long, narrative Fairy Tale. It stood largely independent of his earlier mythologies, and pre-dated even an outline sketch of the later events we see in the 1954 trilogy. Unfortunately, much of what we think we know about luck, fate and destiny in The Hobbit is read backwards into Bilbo's tale -- and it only makes "good sense" after the LOTR was written, and The Hobbit was revised to be more concordant with the philosophies of that later venture. Consequently, I suspect that many of our remarks, linking luck, fate, and destiny in Bilbo's tale, are not really germaine to the 1937 text. Fate and Destiny are indeed validly mixed up with "Luck" in Frodo's story, but is such a compound an integral, planned part of Bilbo's original venture?

[Lanhail]

Heril wrote:
"Luck only becomes fate when there is a guiding consciousness behind the events, a directing will. Do we have strong evidence for the existence of such a "directing will" (divine intervention?) behind the obviously "lucky" sequence of events that occur to/ for Bilbo in The Hobbit?* I am not certain that we do. I think the term "luck" (as we find it in The Hobbit) is quite a separate matter from the "destinies" we see associated with Frodo; and Bilbo's "luck" has few, if any aspects of the kind of Fate we find in the LOTR.."
(*boldface my emphasis)

I believe that the second to last paragraph of the book, which was present in the 1937 version, answers this question so well that I need not comment...or maybe I'm afraid to....

Heril also wrote:
"The Hobbit was revised to be more concordant with the philosophies of that later venture. Consequently, I suspect that many of our remarks, linking luck, fate, and destiny in Bilbo's tale, are not really germaine to the 1937 text. Fate and Destiny are indeed validly mixed up with "Luck" in Frodo's story, but is such a compound an integral, planned part of Bilbo's original venture?"

I just went through my copy of The Annotated Hobbit and unless I missed one, which of course is possible, (would someone double check me?) I believe that the only major changes were made to chap. 5: Riddles in the Dark. All other changes were more for style. For instance, at the point were it says in the Roast Mutton chapter: "Others said: "These parts are none too well known, and too near the mountains. Travellers seldom come this way now. The old maps are no use: things have changed for the worse and the road is unguarded", the 1937 version is: "Policemen never come so far and the map-makers have not reached this country, yet." That is only one example of such changes.

*Spoiler alert*As far as Riddles in the Dark the "lucky" finding of the Ring remains the same. Gollum's personality took a nasty turn in the story we read, instead of pitiful in the 1937 version. As a prize for winning the Riddle Game, Gollum would have given Bilbo the ring. Since Gollum couldn't find it, he showed Bilbo the way out, as everyone read in 1937.
Of course, in the 1937 version there was none of the "pity of Bilbo" (in not killing Gollum) to set in motion the destiny of Frodo and all of Middle-earth. This is THE major change that has philosophical consequences. All other "lucky" events were present in 1937 (according to The Annotated Hobbit).
Lanhail

[FIUT]

Thank you, Lanhail. I did not miss the relevant closing remarks on page 317 of the 1966 edition of The Hobbit, but I did assume, from discussions elsewhere that they were a later addition, post LOTR. I do not have the annotated version, does it reliably reflect ALL the alterations Tolkien made between the two major editions? If so, then I will have to significantly modify my hypotheses, and I think you would be very correct in pointing out that the combination of "luck" just here with a "prophetic tradition" should be seen as a situation of "fate," and not incidental luck. What would then require demonstration, is just how closely this mention of a prophetic tradition, would tie The Hobbit into the Eru material of the Silmarillion mythology. Or is this "prophetic" tradition on page 317 merely an open allusion, with no organic connection to Valinor and the songs of destiny sung by the Ainur?

I would also re-iterate the independent point that most of the interpretations of luck in The Hobbit are still determined by readers who are backreading from the LOTR rather than judging Bilbo's adventure in isolation, the way it was written.

If the closing paragraphs are an original element in The Hobbit, I think I would then attack this problem from a different angle, perhaps without as much confidence, but it still bothers me. I would still point out what I feel to be some very significant differences in the presentation of Bilbo's "luck" all the way up to the very bitter end of the book -- when suddenly the system of "luck" as "personal attribute" seems abruptly, intriguingly, to be plugged into a scheme of luck as fate... Why?

Here it would be wonderful to know (maybe your annotated version has this data?) how long Tolkien labored over The Hobbit, was it years? Did he work it up as draft after draft, revision after revision? Were the last pages written chronologically at the end of the entire performance? Do they represent a change in his thinking, an attempt to link The Hobbit to a larger body of thought?

Well, Lanhail, you are keeping me on my toes, (and forcing me to spend more money on newer editions!) and it is VERY good to have someone to bounce my thoughts off, even if the ricochets whine wasplike round my ears!

Already, (no prophetic tradition implied -- but there it is) this matter has proven to be more complex than it seemed on its surface. LOL!

[Lanhail]

Heril, the following has been distilled from the Introduction of The Annotated Hobbit.

The children remember hearing elements of the story possibly as early as 1926. It is likely that these 'elements' were from various tales that were reused for The Hobbit.
Tolkien later realized that The Marvellous Land of Snergs E.A. Wyke-Smith (1927) was an influence, (especially of hobbits themselves) which means the earliest story was probably conceived no earlier than the summer of 1928 and could be as late as the summer of 1930, which most evidence suggests as the most likely.
There are a number of drafts, which Douglas Anderson labeled A through F.
A----Chapter 1, 6 pages handwritten, opening pages are missing. No date. Smaug is named Pryftan, Thorin is named Gandalf and Gandalf is named Bladorthin.
B---Chapters 1-12 and 14 (called at the time chap 13?). By the end of this Thorin and Gandalf are named "correctly". The key to Lonely Mountain is found in the Trolls' hoard. Beorn is Medwed. There is also an outline from the Elvenking's halls (at the end of chap 14, I am assuming) through the end of the story. The outline contains a passage in which Bilbo stabs the dragon, but was crossed out. No date.
C---C.S. Lewis likely read this version, (in Jan. 1933), which was typed. Thorin and Gandalf were used throughout. Beorn is now Beorn. All the same material as B, including the outline and no chap 13.
D---handwritten covering chap 13 and 15-19.
E---Typed. The chapter and page numbers were reworked to reflect the insertion of the new chapter 13.
F---a second full manuscript which contained a number of typos.
D, E, F were probably all written during the summer of 1936. After this, there were page proofs, etc.
I can't find where Smaug becomes Smaug. Later in the introduction, Anderson states that there was "an additional gap in composition after the eagle episode" during stage B. I am not sure what this means as it is not explained further (at least in the Intro).

If you read The Annotated Hobbit, you will see that Anderson is meticulous about noting even the smallest changes and errors from previous editions. I find it difficult to believe that he might arbitrarily leave out any changes from the published versions. The next to last paragraph stands completely unchanged throughout the various editions.

In Letters, there are a number of occasions where Tolkien mentions that The Hobbit contained bits of his mythology. In Letter 131, Tolkien admits that The Hobbit "was quite independently conceived: I did not know as I began it that it belonged." (pg. 145) I like his term "belonged". He doesn't use "borrowed" which in my mind would imply the borrowing of physical attributes, such as places, entities (Elves, Dwarves, Dragons, etc), and minor historical references. "Belonged", to me, goes much deeper. At least some of the themes found in the greater mythology are also, present in The Hobbit, perhaps, those of fate, destiny and luck included, no "backwriting" of these themes necessary to make it conform to LotR (since both H. and LotR have what was to become The Silmarillion as their foundation). The entire "myth", from Ainulindale on, leads us to this point of "history". The Hobbit so belonged to Tolkien's Middle-earth that it seems inevitable that "luck" would be actually divine intervention. I don't believe that it takes an understanding of LotR or S. to see that, though. The next to last paragraph seems plain to me, even pretending to look at it with a non LotR or S. tainted perspective. The careful reader will have an "ahh-ha" moment right there (Tolkien's motive, possibly, for putting it at the end) and realize that there was something else going on in the rest of the story. That LotR and S. readers are prepared for "luck" being more than what it seems is almost unavoidable.

Someday we will be able to read "The History of The Hobbit" patterned like "The History of Middle-earth" series. If I remember rightly, the first editor died and it was taken up by someone else. My memory is foggy on all details.
Lanhail

[FIUT]

Ah, Lanhail, now some of your material I find helpful, and some of it is not...

In summarizing what you have offered here, excerpted from Douglas Anderson's annotated edition, my mind focuses upon the following points:

1.The Hobbit seems to have had a similar patchwork construction (several different sources of inspiration, and rewrite version after rewrite version) as that which we find for most of JRRT's Middle-earth volumes. And, it was put together over a number of years, possibly 1926 to 1937.

2. The data base concerning the various Hobbit manuscripts (A - F) is incomplete and only partially understood/ partially dated. There are several gaps indicated.

3. Tolkien (Letter #131) re-inforces the original independent status of the Hobbit material (just as Tom Bombadil was originally an independent work with no organic connection to the Silmarillion mythology).

From points one and two, it seems clear that Anderson may be extraordinarily careful in tracing out the lines of development that led to the final version of The Hobbit yet still make legitimate mistakes regarding matters of revision. He is not working from a perfectly serried sequence of full drafts, with appended notes to underline and date each revision.

Please note, Lanhail, I said "legitimate mistakes," here, and never mentioned, even in my first post to address this issue the possibility of any "arbitrary" omissions or commissions on Anderson's part. Until I find out otherwise, I am assuming his basic competency in textual criticism, and I am sure that the peer-review process is functioning well enough (for so prominent an author as Tolkien) that Anderson has made no glaring, egregious errors.

In this regard, as I stated above, if we accept the closing paragraphs on p. 317 (1966 hardback version; p. 286 paperback) as original to, or at least of long standing inclusion within The Hobbit, then several items in my hypothesis require serious reworking, while others stand unaffected.

But, so far, you have offered me no convincing argument against the proposition that we have little or no evidence within the text of The Hobbit that there was a direct, deliberate connection made between this tale and the Silmarillion mythos. Perhaps you misunderstand me here? I am not saying, nor did I ever say, that there was absolutely no connection, no bleeding over of themes, discrete names, places, or entities from the Silmarillion material into The Hobbit. What I am saying, is that it is facile to stress the incidental similarities without addressing the greater differences seen in style of writing, tone, mood, purpose, character portrayal, motivations, themes, and even the illuminating philosophies that exist between the mythos and The Hobbit.

In this regard, the consistent use/ presentation of Bilbo's "luck" as a Norse Saga device, where luck is viewed as a personal attribute, still stands as a clearly distinct theme from the "luck" as fate/ destiny that it becomes in Frodo's case in the LOTR. Here, the last two paragraphs (that subsume Bilbo's luck under a fate concept) do not alter the way that "luck" was presented throughout the text -- that is, without the guiding-hand principle. What was Tolkien up to here? Why would he avoid a statement of fate, all the way up until the final page? This sudden announcement by Gandalf, that Bilbo's "luck" was actually "arranged" remains rather puzzling. Why not introduce this theme from the beginning? And just when did Tolkien alter this theme, and when did he pen the ending phrases of The Hobbit that signal this new interpretation?

The full text of Letter # 131 does not suggest a significant, organic continuity between the early mythos and The Hobbit. In fact, Tolkien does not address this issue at all (in this letter). He merely expresses his mild astonishment that The Hobbit did eventually merge with the "history" of Middle-earth. He does not tell us whether there are more inconsistencies than similarities between the philosophies, themes, character portrayals, etc. etc., of the two works. He does not even tell us how well or in what ways he thought the two merged. He simply states (in 1951) that the final version of The Hobbit does fit into the Middle-earth scheme. Well, yes, but we already knew that much, didn't we?

I am also unconvinced by your interpretation concerning the seminal impact of the single word "belonged" vrs "borrowed." This is not Tolkien's construction, nor is it demonstrably inferable from the context of his writings. But, if we let it stand as your own interpretation, then I am content with it as an expression of your understanding of this matter though I do not see how it logically strengthens any of your following arguments. A "careful reader" will doubtless note that upon this point of interjected, personal opinion, you construct a proclamatory conclusion that is unsupported by any statement of Tolkien's: "The entire 'myth', from Ainulindale on, leads us to this point of 'history'. The Hobbit so belonged to Tolkien's Middle-earth that it seems inevitable that 'luck' would be actually divine intervention."

Inevitable? Really?

Perhaps we finally get down to a matter of emphasis here? You seem to be projecting a continuity, and an organic unity over the entire Tolkien corpus that I simply do not see. While I, perhaps in your opinion, see Tolkien's work as too much of a patchwork thing, a gangly, sprawling structure of many disparate pieces. I would point out that the last 15 years of Tolkien's life were spent trying to systematize, "backread," and unify this mass, an unfinished chore -- perhaps even, an impossible chore...

[Lanhail]

Heril wrote:
"From points one and two, it seems clear that Anderson may be extraordinarily careful in tracing out the lines of development that led to the final version of The Hobbit yet still make legitimate mistakes regarding matters of revision. He is not working from a perfectly serried sequence of full drafts, with appended notes to underline and date each revision."

Heril, the description of the drafts in the introduction was only to enlighten the reader on its history. Douglas Anderson did not use the drafts in the body of the book. There he used the texts of published editions and annotated the revisions. You were curious to find out about the drafts, so I provided what information I could. As far as I'm concerned, they do not matter in our discussion, except to note that the book was completed in 1936.
Darn, I have to go...continue this a bit later.
Lanhail (who has been standing on my toes 24/7 now for a few weeks. Also, I started wearing body armor due to your thoughts bouncing off me, Heril.)

[Lanhail]

Heril wrote:
"The full text of Letter # 131 does not suggest a significant, organic continuity between the early mythos and The Hobbit. In fact, Tolkien does not address this issue at all (in this letter). He merely expresses his mild astonishment that The Hobbit did eventually merge with the "history" of Middle-earth. He does not tell us whether there are more inconsistencies than similarities between the philosophies, themes, character portrayals, etc. etc., of the two works. He does not even tell us how well or in what ways he thought the two merged. He simply states (in 1951) that the final version of The Hobbit does fit into the Middle-earth scheme. Well, yes, but we already knew that much, didn't we?"

My goodness, Heril, you sure do wish alot from the Professor! For those that don't have "Letters", the rest of the quote that I used above from Letter 131 reads: "But it proved to be the discovery of the completion of the whole, its mode of descent to earth, and merging into 'history'. As the high Legends of the beginning are supposed to look at things through Elvish minds, so the middle tale of the Hobbit takes a virtually human point of view - and the last tale blends them." Though Tolkien doesn't explain it to your satisfaction "completion of the whole", in my opinion, lends support to my statement from above: "The entire "myth", from Ainulindale on, leads us to this point of "history"." Part of the "whole" is Eru. Getting back to the subject of this thread "luck"...

Heril wrote:
"In this regard, the consistent use/ presentation of Bilbo's "luck" as a Norse Saga device, where luck is viewed as a personal attribute, still stands as a clearly distinct theme from the "luck" as fate/ destiny that it becomes in Frodo's case in the LOTR. Here, the last two paragraphs (that subsume Bilbo's luck under a fate concept) do not alter the way that "luck" was presented throughout the text -- that is, without the guiding-hand principle. What was Tolkien up to here? Why would he avoid a statement of fate, all the way up until the final page? This sudden announcement by Gandalf, that Bilbo's "luck" was actually "arranged" remains rather puzzling. Why not introduce this theme from the beginning? And just when did Tolkien alter this theme, and when did he pen the ending phrases of The Hobbit that signal this new interpretation?"

....perhaps you missed a statement I made from above: "The careful reader will have an "ahh-ha" moment right there [next to last paragraph] (Tolkien's motive, possibly, for putting it at the end) and realize that there was something else going on in the rest of the story." I have no proof (and I haven't looked for any) that this was the motive....but, it makes sense to me! You may disregard it in full if you like. He finished the story in 1936, according to Anderson from above.
Another busy day ahead for me. I am not finished, but, I have to go.
Lanhail

[Lanhail]

Heril,
I wrote: "You were curious to find out about the drafts, so I provided what information I could. As far as I'm concerned, they do not matter in our discussion, except to note that the book was completed in 1936."

I was wrong. They do matter. Sorry. I've been trying to piece together what was going on in Tolkien's life at the time. "Letters" was unhelpful because there is a gap (1925-1937) where none made it into the book. I turned to Carpenter's "Biography" (pg. 181) "The manuscript of The Hobbit suggests that the actual writing of the main part of the story was done over a comparatively short period of time: the ink, paper, and handwriting style are consistent, the pages are numbered consecutively, and there are almost no chapter divisions. It would also appear that Tolkien wrote the story fluently and with little hesitation, for there are comparatively few erasures or revisions." (pg. 183) "The writing of the story progressed fluently until the passage not far from the end where the dragon Smaug is about to die. Here he hesitated, and tried out the narrative in rough notes...and then shortly after he described the death of the dragon, Tolkien abandoned the story.
"Or to be more accurate, he did not write any more of it down. For the benefit of his children he had narrated an impromptu conclusion to the story." When he was urged to finish it for publication, he finally sat down and did just that.
I know this does not illuminate what else was going on in Tolkien's life, but, I thought you would like to know that once it reached paper, most of The Hobbit was an easy write, not the endless revisioning we are accustomed to seeing with Tolkien in S. and LotR.
I am out of time yet again.
Lanhail

[Andorinha]

Just a short note to advance a notion which may or may not help with this discussion on "luck"; without entering on what Tolkien may have meant by it...

Hilary quotes Shippey as saying that "...no etymology of it is know. The OED suggests, without conviction, that it might come from the words like Old English (ge)lingan, 'to happen', giving then a basic meaning of 'happenstance, or whatever turns up'. Tolkien would have liked that, for it would make 'luck' a close modern equivalent of the Old English word usually translated 'fate'... "

I have in front of me, however, another, included with more conviction in the Etymological Dictionary of Modern English, by Eric Partridge. By a rather long string of steps that include Middle Danish, Low, Middle and High German Patridge concludes that it derives from the Old High German word locchon - to entice.

The problem, as I see it, is that the concept has acquired since then an elasticity of meaning that owes a great deal to subjectivity. It is to some "pure chance" and perhaps it is perfect to so describe a narrow escape, winning the lottery, not boarding a doomed flight, that sort of thing. Examples abound! Catholics may credit their Guardian Angels, others their lucky stars. In any case, there is an acceptance of fate as inescapable except through the agency of Divine Intervention, or luck .

But there is a twist to this acceptance of a degree of human helplessness. We often make conscious choices based on collected information which is both conscious and unconscious, i.e. the more elusive mechanism by which our brains digest information and directs our actions works in concert with the conscious. We often, just the same, think ourselves "lucky" if subsequent events prove that the right decision or path were taken, perhaps because we cannot distinguish rationally the full composition of our reasoning, and are not sure of having had full control.

In this sense, however, the word "locchon" - to entice, offers the clue that we can be "attracted" towards...the right decision, the right solution, the right way, and so on. And so, to others including myself, luck can also be a consequence of inner instinctual direction combined with rational thinking.

LOL! I guess Ben Franklin was thinking along similar lines when he wrote..."I am a strong believer in luck and I find the harder I work the more I have of it."

Darn! That was longer than I meant it to be!

[Lanhail]

From what I can deduce from Carpenter's "Biography" and from having a very basic understanding of how the Professor worked (constant revisioning, etc) seen even in his academic papers, such as "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics" read as a lecture in 1936* but, came from a larger work that I don't have the starting nor finishing dates, the beginning and major portion of The Hobbit seems to be an anomaly. If I remember rightly "Leaf by Niggle" was written quite quickly, also, but that came after The Hobbit.
What does this mean? I think that because it began as a "simple" tale, told orally and re-told many times, it came quite easily to Tolkien. But, at what point did it start "belonging" ;D to Middle-earth? I believe that occurred sometime during its oral phase. But, it might be good to pinpoint exactly where in the published book, the "belonging" can't be construded as "borrowing" ;D . *Spoiler ahead* I will venture an opinion that when they met Elrond, The Hobbit firmly anchored itself into M-e. Without adding more spoilers, the description of Elrond and the relationship between Elves and Dwarves convinces me of this. There seems to be a change of tone that I can't quite put my finger on at this point, too. (I could be seeing something that isn't there). But, this is beyond our point in reading, so I will stop here. *End Spoiler*

Since what I just described comes early in the tale, I will venture to say that Tolkien knew, that when he picked up the pen to write The Hobbit, it was already a part of M-e. I remember reading that the reason Tolkien started writing it down was because Christopher (I believe) kept correcting him on details each time he told it.

How he was going to finally handle "luck", however, quite possibly remained an open question to the bitter end.
Lanhail

*Written at approximately the same time as at least the end of H. was written down.