# The Dwarves' lack of vigilance



## Thráin II (Dec 27, 2004)

In the first chapters of *The Hobbit *it seems to me that the Dwarves, even Thorin, have no vigilance whatsoever when it comes to battles. They are all easily captured by the three trolls whereas there were 13 of them, and they are also very easily captured by goblins, and every time it's up to Gandalf to save them.

Yes, the trolls were bigger and had sacks, but it still looks to me as if Dwarves, being the sturdy fighting type of people that they are should have had no trouble in defeating those three trolls (which we see by their conversation that they are not too smart or well organized either).

Also, the Dwarves are not at all alert when sleeping in the cave where the goblins capture them, and they did not even have one of them on watch.

It seems to me strange that they were able to fight armies of goblins on equal terms if they lacked such vital surival skills.

Has anyone else found this the least bit odd?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 27, 2004)

Thráin II said:


> In the first chapters of *The Hobbit *it seems to me that the Dwarves, even Thorin, have no vigilance whatsoever when it comes to battles. They are all easily captured by the three trolls whereas there were 13 of them, and they are also very easily captured by goblins, and every time it's up to Gandalf to save them...
> 
> It seems to me strange that they were able to fight armies of goblins on equal terms if they lacked such vital surival skills.
> 
> Has anyone else found this the least bit odd?



Good points! I think it becomes a bit clearer if we look at Tolkien's mindset when he was writing _The Hobbit._ And I think I will even dare to say that one can find Tolkien adapting a more mature writing style as he approaches the finish of _The Hobbit_, and perhaps that's part of what you perceive. It was written for children to begin with, and he himself regretted some of the style of language, and the drift of the story (peruse Carpenter's _Letters_ for some of the details). When he was writing LOTR, it was with a different mindset, and he was writing a much more serious story, and even moreso when he was writing _The Silmarillion,_ not one sentence of which contains anything like humor.

So we find the author in different moods and purposes and processes at different times. It was only later that he found that _The Hobbit_ could be the vital link connecting LOTR with Sil (and actually rewrote parts of it to that end). Still, the stylistic differences are there for all to see, and sometimes they jar the reader. Not to worry: repeated readings "smooth the sharp corners" as time passes.

Barley


----------



## Earendilyon (Dec 27, 2004)

Throughout _The Hobbit_ we see the dwarves 'grow to' the picture we've of them from the LotR and the Silm. When the Party has reached at last the treasure (and especially when they've to defend it) we see them turn into the dwarves known from Tolkien's Legendarium: their lust for gold and precious stones, their ferociousness in battle (the Dwarves from the Iron Mountains!).
Come to think of it, during the Battle of the Five Armies all the parties concerned act more like they 'should', Elves, Men, Orcs and Dwarves alike.


----------



## GuardianRanger (Dec 27, 2004)

Thráin II said:


> Also, the Dwarves are not at all alert when sleeping in the cave where the goblins capture them, and they did not even have one of them on watch.
> 
> It seems to me strange that they were able to fight armies of goblins on equal terms if they lacked such vital surival skills.
> 
> Has anyone else found this the least bit odd?




To the point about sleeping in the cave.....I suspect that they all were extremely weary from the long trip, the weather, and nervous about the giants outside. Even if they had a look-out, or guard, that person would probably have "crashed" as well. And it's not like the Dwarves had much of a chance. They didn't know they were in the back door to the gobiln abode. A crack appeared out of nowhere and the dwarves were overrun.


----------



## Arvegil (Dec 28, 2004)

GuardianRanger said:


> To the point about sleeping in the cave.....I suspect that they all were extremely weary from the long trip, the weather, and nervous about the giants outside. Even if they had a look-out, or guard, that person would probably have "crashed" as well. And it's not like the Dwarves had much of a chance. They didn't know they were in the back door to the gobiln abode. A crack appeared out of nowhere and the dwarves were overrun.


All of which isn't consistent with the description of the Dwarves' creation in The Silmarillion. Aule makes them to be hardy and to endure harsh conditions, not to plop down in the first cave and leave no guard. are these the descendants of the Dwarves who stood up to Glaurung in the Fifth Battle, and struck the final blow in the War of the Elves and Sauron by completing the encirclement of Sauron's forces?


----------



## Thráin II (Dec 29, 2004)

Indeed, good points all around. We see even more Dwarf sloppyness as they are captured by the spiders in Mirkwood, though, they perhaps cannot be blamed there as Mirkwood was feared all over Middle Earth by all for its horrifying creatures.

Also, I quite agree that the portrait of the Dwarves in the Hobbit is inconsistent with that of the Dwarves in the Silmarillion.

Of course while their hastyness in decision making (usually poor decision making) where politeness and patience is concerned is acceptably one of their defining traits, I would have expected the people who built great halls under the Mountain to fare well during their adventure.

Thanks for all the replies, it's given me useful insight.


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 29, 2004)

It seems to me that the Dwarves underestimated the dangers of the journey from beginning to end. First, Thorin wants to do battle with Smaug (UT, The Quest of Erebor), then they turn up at Bilbo's with musical instruments, better equipped for a party than a quest. 

Next, a bit of bad weather drives them recklessly towards the troll fire (not waiting for the burglar's report). 

After Rivendell, they seemed to be lulled into another period of false security, despite Elrond's warnings. It seems that even Gandalf wouldn't have been awake in time to rescue them if it weren't for Bilbo's timely dream. 

After this, they seem to have learned their lesson, and Balin is set on watch. But it doesn't last. Another brief spell of comfort, courtesy of Beorn, seems to have turned their heads again, until the discomforts of Mirkwood and the reckless expenditure of their arrows make them pursue yet another fire in the woods (don't these guys ever learn?).

However, at each of these inexcusable lapses, the story is built up to provide fodder for the great epic of The Lord of the Rings.


The Troll hoard provides Glamdring, Gandalf's sword
The Goblin Gate gives us Gollum and the One Ring
The Elven fire provides capture and the only safe route out of Mirkwood (would the Necromancer have got the Ring without this diversion?)


----------



## Earendilyon (Dec 29, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> However, at each of these inexcusable lapses, the story is built up to provide fodder for the great epic of The Lord of the Rings.
> 
> 
> The Troll hoard provides Glamdring, Gandalf's sword
> ...


Of course, this is right for intertextual reasons: if one reckons _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord of the Rings_ to be two parts of the same story (remember Sam's musings on the stairs of Cirith Ungol!). But extratextually, we of course know, that when JRRT wrote TH, he had no idea whatsoever of the LotR. So, the story of TH is not "built up to provide fodder" for the LotR, but the other way around, when writing the story of the LotR JRRT took elements from TH for use in the LotR to intergrate the two parts of the larger story.


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 29, 2004)

But looking at a story extratextually is boring! Also, The Hobbit was revised to better dovetail with The Lord of the Rings.

When a sequel was requested, Tolkien said that The Hobbit was a complete entity with no room for a sequel; but he then took the threads from The Hobbit and wove them into the new work. So although The Hobbit was written as a single book, Tolkien worked it so that the two became one. So however we look at it, The blunders of the Dwarves in The Hobbit _did_ provide the fodder for TLotR - it _had_ to.


----------



## Thráin II (Dec 29, 2004)

If we are to give any author of fictional literature any satisfaction whatsoever we have to agree to put our prejudices aside and allow ourselves to "be captured" by whatever he wrote.

Tolkien's entire work is null if we start reading it thinking "nice connections between these two stories that Tolkien claims to be linked together... too bad it wasn't his idea because in fact the first of them was written without any knowledge of the second".

And as for Eledhwen's great points, I believe that even if perhaps the finding of Glamdring in the troll's cave is something that Tolkien *might* have used in the LotR simply because it was in TH and wanted to give the entire story unity, but the finding of the One Ring is the heart of the LotR and is the basis for one of the greatest wars in the history of ME, so I doubt that that part was not modified at a later time so as to suit the writing of the LotR and was in fact just a meaningless detail written for children's amusement which was then expanded.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 29, 2004)

Thráin II said:


> If we are to give any author of fictional literature any satisfaction whatsoever we have to agree to put our prejudices aside and allow ourselves to "be captured" by whatever he wrote.



Exactly! This concept is known as _the willing suspension of disbelief._ In other words, stop being chronically analytical and simply go along with the author! *Accept it as presented!* How else are you going to enjoy it as the author intended??? It is ridiculous to habitually read with one eye towards analysis and critique (worse, a compulsive tendency to simply criticise).



> Tolkien's entire work is null if we start reading it thinking "nice connections between these two stories that Tolkien claims to be linked together... too bad it wasn't his idea because in fact the first of them was written without any knowledge of the second".



This is okay once the story is read for what it is, _suspending_ one's tendency to analyze, criticise, etc. Why anyone would want to read anything (indeed, listen to music, observe a painting, or experience any other sort of creative work) in such a manner is beyond me. This is the mindset of a really poor critic, or someone who is on constant alert for anything usable for the pumping up of his ego (something he can criticise and act as an "expert" about).

Barley


----------



## Earendilyon (Dec 29, 2004)

I agree with you, Eledhwen, that TH provided 'fodder' for the creation of the LotR, but in your first post you said that "the story [of TH] is built up to provide fodder" for the LotR, which it wasn't. It is a story in itself and not meant as a sequel to the LotR, so its built up has in itself nothing to do with the LotR (except for some later adjustments). It's the other way around: the LotR buits forth on elements of TH that had (when TH was written) only a function in their specific context of TH.

*BB* said:


> Exactly! This concept is known as the willing suspension of disbelief. In other words, stop being chronically analytical and simply go along with the author! Accept it as presented! How else are you going to enjoy it as the author intended??? It is ridiculous to habitually read with one eye towards analysis and critique (worse, a compulsive tendency to simply criticise).


I totally agree. That's why I made a difference between an intertextual and an extratextual approach. When reading Tolkien's works (or any other work) I do suspend my disbelief (unless the works is poorly written (or filmed, for that matter)), but when discussing about it, both approaches should be used, how can the Silm, for example, be otherwise liked to the Creation story from Genesis?


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 29, 2004)

Sorry, Earendilyon; I should have been clearer. Maybe 'The Hobbit was built upon' would have been better. Riddles in the Dark had to be re-written to accommodate the re-entry of Gollum into the story for The Lord of the Rings, and it became considerably darker. I understand other minor edits were made too. This is why first editions of The Hobbit are so valuable. I would dearly love to read the original text, just to see how the story was first conceived; but to date I have only read allusions to it.

I really appreciated The Quest of Erebor in Unfinished Tales. Up until I read that, I always wondered what the events were that lead to Gandalf and the Dwarves turning up at Bag End. I still wonder whether Tolkien ever intended to incorporate that prequel into The Hobbit. If he did, I don't think he told anyone (unless someone knows different ??? )


----------



## Starbrow (Jan 26, 2005)

> I would dearly love to read the original text, just to see how the story was first conceived; but to date I have only read allusions to it.



I got The Annotated Hobbit for Christmas. It has both the original version on "Riddles in the Dark" and Tolkien's revisions. It's interesting to see how the whole tone of the chapter has changed.


----------



## Meselyn (Jan 27, 2005)

They do seem to lack some vigilance. I mean, if dwarves are such stern fighters. Gimili proves that. Then why didn't they really fight back?


----------



## baragund (Jan 27, 2005)

Meselyn, the 13 Dwarves actually fought well in some parts of the book. Of course they showed a lot of valor during the Battle of Five Armies but they also fought the spiders pretty darned well in Mirkwood, considering they were starving and recovering from their venom.

Someone earlier remarked that Tolkien's portrayal of the Dwarves evolved between the beginning and the end of The Hobbit. At the beginning, they were pretty inept, getting caught by the trolls and the goblins and relying on Gandalf for every little thing. But by the time they reached Erebor, they were starting to act more "Gimli-like".


----------



## Arvegil (Jan 27, 2005)

Meselyn said:


> They do seem to lack some vigilance. I mean, if dwarves are such stern fighters. Gimili proves that. Then why didn't they really fight back?


 
Maybe, in the end, plot necessities drove the sloppiness (as stated supra). Bilbo needed to get separated and find the Ring alone. The Dwarves needed to get trapped in Mirkwood so Bilbo could rescue them. The Dwarves who fought Morgoth would be more likely to die in some glorious last stand than get captured and survive due to a sequence of events started by Gandalf.

Dori: "Why aren't we leaving a guard?"

Ori: "It's in the script."


----------



## Eledhwen (Jan 28, 2005)

Starbrow said:


> I got The Annotated Hobbit for Christmas. It has both the original version on "Riddles in the Dark" and Tolkien's revisions. It's interesting to see how the whole tone of the chapter has changed.


That is really useful information; especially as my birthday's coming up soon


----------



## GuardianRanger (Jan 28, 2005)

Eledhwen said:


> That is really useful information; especially as my birthday's coming up soon



Eledhwen, you really can't go wrong with that book. It is great!
The pictures, the annotations, everything.


----------



## Annaheru (Feb 8, 2005)

What I think you guys are overlooking is that these dwarves have been out of the loop so to speak for some time. Think about it, Thorin says that they've been working at blacksmith work- presumably to the west of the Shire, in the Blue Mnts or some other mostly sheltered region. It's understandable that under such circumstances they might grow complacent. Presumably the last time any of them had seen combat was during the Goblin Wars, when Thorin got his epithet. Seemingly even Dwarves can loose their 'edge' given enough time. Remember, the journey to the Mountain took less than a year. By the time the story ends circumstances have changed: danger and hardship have started to restore their toughness, and the recovery or their treasure would have fueled their sense of personal pride (a proud dwarf is a fighting dwarf).


----------



## Hammersmith (Feb 8, 2005)

Also remember that the trolls were very near the shire, indeed in a sheltered and supposedly peaceful area. The dwarves should have expected to find a woodcutter or traveller, not three battle-experienced monsters with enough history to have killed weapon-wielding warriors and enough rare intellect to speak in complex sentences and wear clothes. Though why the dwarves came one by one is strange. Perhaps they were so confident of an innocent explanation that they were pulling the "arrive gradually so as not to intrude" trick again.

I'm interested in these stone giants. Would they not have been sufficient reason for the dwarves to be on guard? Or perhaps they were confident that the giants and storm combined would drive away any intruders. Let's also remember that complacency aside, these dwarves were hardened warriors and would have surely been adept trackers. I'm stretching now, but they must have known that the area outside the cave was clear and untravelled (the goblin entrance was not a commonly used one) and thus been unafraid of outside assault.

Also, these dwarves seem to be rather stubborn and argumentative, so when warned specifically about the dangers of Mirkwood, would their responses not have been contempt and even a bit of subconscious daring?
Beorn warned them against keeping his horses, and it took Gandalf to force them to return them. Even then they grumbled. Their disbelief of any danger seems to reason why they so readily discarded the advise to stay on the path. Their misadventure with the spiders came after they neared starvation also, remember.


----------



## Annaheru (Feb 9, 2005)

good points. one thing though- as for signs around the goblin entrance, the rain would have destroyed any outside, and the dry, clean floor of a cave doesn't leave much trace. The most intruiging aspect of the cave scene is why Gandalf wasn't paying more attention, after all he's the one who knew caves weren't normally unused inthe mountains (see text).


----------



## Hammersmith (Feb 9, 2005)

Annaheru said:


> good points. one thing though- as for signs around the goblin entrance, the rain would have destroyed any outside, and the dry, clean floor of a cave doesn't leave much trace. The most intruiging aspect of the cave scene is why Gandalf wasn't paying more attention, after all he's the one who knew caves weren't normally unused inthe mountains (see text).


 
Regarding that, I think any good tracker could have discovered traces of frequent habitation. I'm not talking a few footprints, but a track or discarded rubbish. Basically it didn't look as though anyone was _living_ there.

As for Gandalf...maybe he _did_ know. After all, Bilbo had to get the ring. Perhaps Gandalf's subconscious told him that this particular cave would be worth exploring. He is a wizard after all...or maybe he was confident that he could defeat a handful of goblins or trolls sheltering in the cave. Maybe he didn't expect to face off against the entire bodyguard of a Great Goblin.


----------



## Annaheru (Feb 9, 2005)

Remember, that opening was relatively recent- the path hadn't been a problem before, even goblins would be unlikely to leave piles of garbage beside their new secret gate. Besides, I spend a lot of time outside, and have made a study of tracking, not only are there methods for hiding sign (some more effective than others) but dry cave floors are one of the least conducive areas for detecting it. Unless you scuff stone with metal nothing shows up, and in sand or gravel everything is indistinct: bear tracks and man tracks look remarkably similar and within doors nothing would be overlaying them to show their age. If the goblins made even the smallest effort towards keeping that door secret they could have done so.


----------



## Hammersmith (Feb 9, 2005)

Yeah, I didn't dispute that  

I just said that there were no signs that the cave was a commonly used goblin haunt - indeed as you pointed out, the pass was familiar to them. They would therefore have fairly concluded that _if it were_ occupied, whether or not they could detect footprints or tracks, there could (by their reasoning) only be a handful of enemies in the cave.


----------

