To many fans, Thorin is seen as the villian in the third act of The Hobbit. This article notes that Thorin's demands and requests are not unreasonable, and that it is difficult not to find sympathy with his viewpoint.
"The same traits Thorin exhibited as a prisoner in the dungeons of the Elvenking, such as stubbornness and distrust, are now in conflict with the wishes of the chief protagonist, and he is no longer seen as the victim, but as a miser. In this way, he becomes the antagonist by opposing the goal of the hero, even though his own goals never change; he never makes a secret of his desires, nor a promise that he will be generous with the treasure. As it is, the original contract between the dwarves and Bilbo is very specific on the matter of shares. By being protective of the treasure, Thorin is safeguarding all of the Company’s interests. Looking at it from the standpoint of the dwarves, one could say Thorin remains true to his nature, and everyone else becomes antagonistic toward him."
The the site for this article has evolved into a conversation among fans about the character, primarily thanks to the comments section.
I haven't been a big contributor to the conversation, but reading other people's viewpoints has definitely been interesting for me. At a few points, I can tell people mixed up the events in the book with the event's in the movie (Events that haven't actually happened yet, because the movie has not yet been released!!).
(Note: Spoilers are to follow for the concluding chapters of "The Hobbit")
There seem to be two strains of thought regarding Thorin's actions preceding the battle and his subsequent death.
1) That his actions and demands were justified given his complex social and cultural history of the Dwarves, Elves, and Humans.
2) That his misdeeds contributed to the misery and death of thousands of people and that his own subsequent death was required for him to "redeem himself".
So, who's fault is the battle of five armies???
- Thorin, for not surrendering a portion of the gold to the former inhabitants of Dale in their time of need?
- Thrandull, for his unwarranted intervention and lack of respect of the Dwarve's authority?
- Bard, for refusing due process and insisting on access to gold that technically wasn't his?
- Gandalf-for not seeking out Thorin and Co. in confidence instead of immediately siding with their enemies?
- Or Bilbo for betraying his friends and giving the Elves and Humans a powerful bargaining chip that ultimately ignited the battle itself?
At first glance, it seems that everyone on this list was 'doing the right thing' and was completely justified in making a stand for which ever side he thought was right.
- Thorin agrees the Humans will get financial help in due process. But on his terms, because it is his mountain and his gold.
- Thranduill helped the Human's in the aftermath of the dragon attack, so he has a right to be there.
- Bard and the Laketowners need the money, like, now.
- Gandalf was so busy fighting the Necromancer he forgot that Thorin and Co. still existed.
- And poor Bilbo just wanted the whole thing to be over without any more hurt or trouble to anyone.
Who was justified in their offence of the other parties? Whose motives were "right" and whose were "wrong"? Who was "the enemy", and who "started it"?
Sometimes people are so concerned with finding the right side that they miss the most beautiful, the most poetic, the most hear-breaking truth that Tolkien communicated in any of his bodies of writing.
This message is not found in The Lord of The Rings, not in The Silmarillion, or in any of Tolkien's other writing projects: It is that good people can disagree, good people can do bad things, and good people can die at the hands of other good people.
(Although it never really comes to that...they get invaded by a
Sometimes the right thing won't in our best interests, sometimes even if we do act selflessly we can't avoid the negative consequences. I believe Bilbo illustrates this point best when he gives "The Heart of The Mountain" to the Elf king and still returns to Thorin's side. He's willing to take the fall-out for his actions.
One commenter to the thread observed that Bilbo's role and his choices in the battle were "maddening" and said, "he seems so undecided and wavers in his loyalties" as he (Bilbo) initially chooses to stay with the Dwarves, but then goes to fight with the Elf King. I pointed out in another comment that he did no leave Thorin and Co. of his own accord, he was dis-fellowshiped from them...and nearly thrown off a cliff!
Because I've been re-visiting this ongoing discussion for a while, I've come to another conclusion about Bilbo that I'd like to share: I do not think for one second that Bilbo was "undecided" in terms of knowing what the right thing to do was. He was the only member of the Company, and perhaps within the whole realm of Erador, with the clarity to see the destructive course that the pride and greed of both sides would bare.
Bilbo isn't pointing fingers, he knows that the answer to "Whose fault is it" is "It doesn't matter, I still have to do the right thing." He knows that there is no "bad" side, there is simply a "right" thing to do and a "wrong" thing to do. And because no one else is doing those things, he does it himself.
Since there are a ton of parallels between "The Battle of Five Armies and World War I: I wanted to share this website I really like that helped me learn about the First World War.
http://www.firstworldwar.com/
It's really fascinating how the whole situation just got completely out of control because people over-reacted to a problem and started getting their friends involved in drama.
No comments:
Post a Comment