The Hobbit

[Turin Turambar]

Do the discrepencies in The Hobbit bother any of you? Such as the giants in the Misty Mountains, goblins instead of orcs (though that isn't a big one), evil elves (Thranduil), or the desert wyrms Bilbo talks about in the east. After reading the LotR and Silm I don't like to read The Hobbit because it doesn't really tie into the same history as the other books do so neatly. Or am I just crazy?

[Joy]

Well, Turin, it really didn't bother me. I realized some of the things that you mention, ie the stone giants in the Mountains and the goblins, but this was written for children. Children would understand goblins better than they would Orcs, some could state that later the stone Giants were changed to represent the unmerciful Cadhras(sp).

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: Joy ]

[Birdland]

I think the discrepancies you mention are pretty minor, Turin, and some of them aren't really discrepancies at all. I've always thought that the Stone Giants might have had a hand in the attack of the Fellowship on Caradhras, (I think I discussed it in an earlier thread), and Thranduil wasn't so much evil, unless you consider all Elves evil because of their dislike and distrust of the Dwarves. As far as he was concerned, he was protecting his land and people from some rather shady characters.

I guess the greatest difference between The Hobbits and Tolkien's other books is the writing style. It is definitely a children's book. Perhaps it's best to just enjoy it as a "stand-alone" work, and not worry whether it totally follows canon.

I mean, Tolkien did the best he could to try to bring The Hobbit more in line with the doings of LoTR, but there's only so many changes you can do to a book that had become an accepted classic in the twenty years before his greatest work was to be published.

P.S. - Congrats on your title, Joy!

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: Birdland ]

[Orald]

I just take them as internal descrepencies. Since Bilbo wrote what we know as the Hobbit, there are going to be some mistakes and biased opinions. The stone giants could very well have been a different type of troll than the stone trolls he encountered earlier on his adenture. The term goblin is used in LotR as well, mostly for orcs from the Misty Mountains. And of course Bilbo's memory of the Elves of Mirkwood would have been more than a little biased considering the events that took place. The desert wyrms could very well have been a legend of Hobbits or everyone even.

[Nufaciel]

Tolkien considered orcs/goblins the same thing, except for the name change. Thranduil and his people weren't evil, just a little distrustful of dwarves, as almost all the elves seemed to be in the Third Age, and though they kept them captive, they were treated extremely well. The 'discrepencies' don't bother me in the least bit, though I don't know that any of these really are.

[Elven-Maiden]

Good point, Durelen! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

The only discepency that sort of bothered me was the elves at Rivendell, being rather rude to the dwarves, yet being so polished and prim in LotR. But then again, it's understandable, considering the feud between the two.

[Turin Turambar]

Yes whenever I read The Hobbit I think of it as Bilbo being the author. So it makes up for the childish stance it takes, but I still wish Tolkein had written as he had done the others.

[Ulairi]

Actually, i considered "Orcs" and "Goblins" two different things. Goblins in my perception of the books were the ones in Moria and such, they were in my mind a bit smaller, more lanky and a bit more slimy. While orcs were like the Uruk-hai and the orcs of Mordor. They were a bit larger and stronger, and more violent.

I never really took notice to the giants. I just thought they golem like creatures of the mountains.

[Birdland]

...but I still wish Tolkein had written as he had done the others.

Turin, I just wish Tolkein had written ANYTHING else like he had the "others".

Oh, well. We gotta live with what we got.

[greyhavener]

I love the Hobbit just the way it is. It's a wonderful story. And after all it was Tolkien's catalyst for all the rest. This world has the occassional unexplained phenomena, why not Tolkien's?

[Tarthang]

The only valid discrepency I can think of is the mention of giants. Which from a hobbit perspective could be just about any manshaped race taller than they. I agree on orcs and goblins being the same thing, and also visualize goblins as a weaker variety of orc (perhaps the sniffer in Mordor would be considered a goblin?). As for the worms, might they be dragons, or perhaps an earlier attempt of Morgoth's at creating dragons?

[Kalessin]

Okay ... [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

... I just wish Tolkein had written ANYTHING else like he had the "others".

Well said [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Peace

[Meoshi]

Can anyone give me the quote from the book that mentions desert worms?

[Birdland]

"Wyrms" is an old Anglo-Saxon word for Dragons. So Bilbo would have been speaking about Dragons that lived in the East.

I believe there are references to Smaug in The Hobbit as a "wrym".

[Meoshi]

In what part of the book does he mention the wyrms in the east? (RPG reasons)

[Birdland]

"Tell me what you want done, and I will try it, if I have to walk from here to the East of East and fight the wild Were-worms in the Last Desert."
Bilbo Baggins,
in The Hobbit, An Unexpected Party

Of course, that was a Were-worm, and not a real worm, so I guess the jury's still out on whether there were Dragons in the East.

[akhtene]

I only found them mentioned on Thror's map: next to the arrow that points west

the Withered Hearth whence came the Great Worms

[Meoshi]

Hmm...I see RPG possibilities...

[steve]

I belive the diffrence between the goblins and the orcs were that the goblins were smaller and weaker and alot more abundant in the mountans but the orcs were stronger bigger and not as abundant

also i did not like (i know it was a children's book) how he made the trolls seem smart, or atleast to an extent

[Liriodendron]

Hmmmm, I wish the other books were more like The Hobbit. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[the guy who be short]

i also agree with the rivendell elves idea. in lotr they are wise and intelligent. in the hobbit, all they seem to do is sing strange songs.
goblins and orcs are exactly the same thing. orcs is derived from sindarin yrch. uruk-hai are orcs bred with men.

[Dain]

There are a few other discrepencies in the Hobbit, though I really love it as a book. For one, none of the Dwarves are anywhere as tough as Gimli, at least, not until the end when they are in an actual battle. And, it is never mentioned that Gimli brings any musical instrument along with him on the ring quest... [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

The way dwarves and elves behave can be explained a bit by the "Bilbo's perspective theory" and the fact that he had to be the hero so he had to always rescue them. But who says Troll's don't talk like the ones in The Hobbit? Do we ever see Trolls up close again? And are we sure there are no Giants? Because Tolkien mentions a lot of other things off-hand in other places, like werewolves and vampires, that he doesn't fully explain but are apparently as much a part of middle earth as Elves and Hobbits, just a little less defined...

[The Saucepan Man]

I am currently reading the Hobbit to my daughter and we are both enjoying it immensely. Clearly, given that it is primarily a book for children, the style is very different from that of LotR. It is therefore not surprising that the Elves of Rivendell and Mirkwood and the Dwarves of Thorin's company are portrayed differently than their counterparts in LotR. As others have pointed out, this can be explained by reference to the different attributed authorship of the two books: Bilbo in the case of the Hobbit and Frodo and others in the case of LotR. Bilbo had good reason to portray Thranduil's folk unsympatheticaly and the Dwarves as slightly ineffective, whereas Frodo, Sam and co clearly regarded Legolas and Gimli as valiant and heroic companions.

Having said that, and notwithstanding the difference in style, I am not sure that there are any real factual discrepancies between the two books. Taking each of the examples given:

... the giants in the Misty Mountains ...

There is nothing in LotR to suggest that Stone Giants were not resident in the Misty Mountains. Indeed, on route to the pass of Caradhras, Boromir and Aragorn seem to allude to them:

"We cannot go further tonight," said Boromir. "Let those call it the wind who will; there are fell voices onthe air, and these stones are aimed at us."

"I do call it the wind," said Aragorn. "But that does not make what you say untrue. There are many evil and unfriendly things in the world that have little love for those that go on two legs and yet are not in league with Sauron, but have purposes of their own ..."

Boromir certainly seems to think that the stones are being thrown at them, stone throwing being a past-time of Stone Giants, although Aragorn's reference is less clear since one would imagine that Giants too would go on two legs.

... goblins instead of orcs ...

Goblins and Orcs are of the same ilk, although Goblins seem to be smaller in stature:

"A bit low for goblins, at least for the big ones," thought Bilbo, not knowing that even the big ones, the orcs of the mountains, go along at great speed stooping low with their hands almost on the ground.

... evil elves (Thranduil) ...

Thranduil's folk were not evil:

But the king, when he received the prayers of Bard, had pity, for he was the lord of a good and kindly people ...

... or the desert wyrms Bilbo talks about in the east.

Smaug was, I think, said to be one of the last of his kind. That does not preclude the possibility of other Dragons (ie Wyrms) residing in the deserts of the east. Or, as has been noted, they might simply have been a Hobbit myth.

So, I don't see any factual discrepancies. Just a difference in style. And personally, I love all the connections between the Hobbit and LotR, such as Gimli being Gloin's son, Legolas being Thranduil's son, the appearance of Sting and the mithril coat, and of course the central part played by the seemingly innocuous Ring that Bilbo picked up in the dark.

[Liriodendron]

That is what makes Tolkien's "mythology" so believable, the layers of different times and narratives, all of their own, yet coming from different peoples and places. Just like the real world! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[lindil]

I am with Saucepan Man on all points.

I too gained a newfound respect for The Hobbit[and the early part of the FotR esp, Bombadil] over the last few years as I first began to read the books to my very young girls.

The Hobbit, despite being less mature [interms of it's tatrget audience and JRRT's own powers as a writer] is still a tour de force of a kids book. The way it weaves in moral conundrums [esp the arkenstone business at the end] and deals with grey areas such as 'good elves' being excessively [but not in their terms of reference] harsh, and Bilbo busting them out.

There are a lot of gems in the book as long as one does not hold it too the same standard as the LotR [or the even more polished and mature writings in his later years such as the Wanderings of Hurin, The Narn i hin Hurin, Athrabeth Finrod ha Andreth, the Last versions of the Early Silm Chapters,The Druedain, Aldarion and Erendis etc. ].

I find that the various types of story, the varrying POV and interactions of the races all give the Legendarium and depth surpassing all other fiction [and most non-Fiction!]and having some of it written from the pov of a formerly provincial [but still not too world-wise] hobitt encountering the Big World, adds too it all.

That being said, if I ever finish the Translations from the ELvish PRoject, I would love to recast the Hobbit in a more adult tone [which JRRT also wished to do, and if I recall correctly did some serious and unreleased work on] incorporating the Quest for Erebor stories and what little we know of the expulsion of the 'necromancer'.

I have while on long driving trips, had extremely vivid ideas for recastin the Hobbit into a PJ like [minus the abusive'creative vision' thing [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] ]

And having it start with Ian McKellan [in disguise, we do not yet know it is Gandalf]sneaking into Dol Guldor] and getting the key and map and learning it is in fact Sauron, with a narrow escape... etc and reporting to a suspicious Christopher Lee with the rest of the White Council looking on...

Well anyway I won't get started [well, I won't go on!] but I think it could make an excellent PG-13ish film especially if one builds on PJ's base of Rivendell and such [heck we Legolas could even be in it assuring instant success [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Anyway, if anyone finds they are down on the Hobbit, try reading it to a little'un.

Seeing it through their eyes [as JRRT did when he was writing it] will make all of difference.

[Atariel]

I'm not quite sure where this came from- it certainly wasn't my brain (it being too complex and intelligent for me to think of)- but someone once said that those who read the Hobbit as children would have been adults by the time the Fellowship of the Ring was published in 1954. So, if the elves are all giggly and childish in the Hobbit, then all melancholy and serious in LotR, perhaps they aged with the story.
But, then again, most elves are thousands of years old, so a matter of seventeen (real life) or even eighty (M.E) years would seem like nothing. And, to reiterate everybody else's point, the Hobbit is ultimately a children's story, whereas LotR wouldn't necessarily be described as suitable for most children.

Thankyou to Turin Turambar for starting this chain, because it's very interesting and it's something on the subject of which I've always wanted to know other people's opinions.

[lindil]

Interesting point Atariel.

Re: the reception by Thorin and co. of the Rivendell elves, remember that they were spoofing on the Dwarves, the Hobbit says as much. They had somehow gtten word of the fact that the Dwarves were going to attempt to destroy Smaug [or that at least is waht Gandalf hoped] and they seem to have thought it completely out of the leaugue of probablity so they were basically making fun of them. It is also possible that the particular elves encountered that led them to the Bridge were somewhat anti-dwarven, we really do not know, but just because they sing childish songs does not mean that all elves should, would or did. It just means that those Elves at that time chose to interact with those particular Dwarves in thatway.

They were a big race with many sub-clans and doubtless there music and sense of humour could vary as much as our differing cultures and social-classes do.

the thing about the hobbit that i always to be most strange was that gandalf couldnt read the writing on the swords or the map but elrond could... i suppose thats part of the stuff he forgot when he came to middle earth? but then why did he not bother to learn elvish in the 2000 odd years since he came but then did in the 60 between the hobbit and lotr? oh well [img]smilies/redface.gif[/img]