This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've just overhauled the structure of the page a little, hopefully placed the 'inconsistencies' in the historical context of Tolkiens writing the LOTR, removed some non-NOP, flagged up the original research and downplayed the movie adaptation saga, as most of it is recounting rumour, if someone would like to create a Hobbit(movie) page... -- Davémon 18:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Legendarium? This word doesn't make the Oxford English Dictionary. Any chance someone who knows what it supposedly means can replace it with a word that actually exists...

I've seen it applied numerous times as a synonymous name for the array of Tolkien's mythology (just look it up in Google to make sure!), and there was no problem with that, both for me and the author. However if you don't like the word, feel free to replace it by whatever you want (e.g. mythology is close). -- Uriyan

I love the word "legendarium," but it is not in common usage. Plus Mythology lets us link to that page. -- Cayzle

Legendarium was used by Tolkien himself. And legendarium can be made into a redirect to mythology. Ausir 14:51, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Hobbit was not considered a children's book when it was first translated into Finnish, with a matching translation of names and an illustration by Tove Jansson. This version tends to cause either mirth or nausea in good amounts among Finnish fans of Tolkien. Would this warrant a mention in the article? -- Kizor

Well, but it WAS written as a children's book :). Ausir 14:51, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Which Tolkien later regretted. — Jor (Talk) 15:13, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

An excellent point, sir. Though the contrast Dragon Mountain (as this version was called) has with the later translation and the rest of Tolkien's works is nonetheless absurd. Kizor

General comment about book synopses: is it really necessary to detail the entire plot? To me, it not only makes the article unwieldy, it opens the door to more error, inconsistencies, etc. User:Alcarillo

Under the "Novel" section yet another example is made depriving Tolkien of ever having Meaning in his work because he disliked allegory, mentioned in his forward to a later edition of LOTR. People conveniently omit what he goes on to say that he doesn't like allegory proper, but does not have a problem with applicability, the former is the author's direct desire to control your interpretation and the latter allows the reader freedom to interpret. Too many people tend to confuse allegory with any degree of moral quotient. An allegorical interpretation of the work includes making the ring stand in for nuclear bombs or a specific character representing a real life person, etc etc etc. It was this Tolkien presumably detested. Degrees of moral value, open to the interpretation of the reader- mythos, obligation, faith, socio-religious system (anarchic catholicism) are all there in spades, it is just up to the reader to interpret any meaning for themselves. The Lord of the Rings is a very spiritual work, it is just not dead on specific or heavy handed. Just what Tolkien intended at the time of writing The Hobbit, who knows, but tapping into the mythos of Heroism certainly seems manifest. But it is generic to say the least, Bilbo certainly doesn't represent anything specific, or Gollum or Smaug etc etc etc.

Does the "Preview of Sequel" section really belong? The format of the article led me to believe that allusions to the beginning of The Lord of the Rings were featured at the end of the book, but upon reaching it I found no such references. This is misleading; we needn't a whole paragraph "previewing" LotR if no such preview is in The Hobbit itself. - [[User:Furrykef| furrykef ( Talk at me)]] 23:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it can go. Elsewhere the article makes it clear that The Hobbit comes before The Lord of the Rings. If the reader is interested in learning more about LOTR they can read its article(s). -- Mrwojo 00:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be worth mentioning how much Tolkien was influenced by Beowulf when writing the Hobbit? Perhaps even the parallels could be drawn out. If you guys want me to, I can do it... Matthias

The only parallel to Beowulf I can think of is the Dragon, Smaug. And that may just be a coincidence. Dragons are a recurring theme in fantasy tales. Do you have any other examples? Ereinion File:RAHSymbol.JPG

A party of 13 sets out for satisfaction or revenge. In both parties there is a thief, who steals a cup from a dragon by using a secret passage. So far about the story. Singing is very important in the hobbit, poems presented by scoppes were important for Anglo Saxons and two are found in Beowulf. The dwarfish culture also has elements of Anglo Saxon culture, e.g. where Anglo Saxon names are often alliterated if they people are from the same family, the names of the dwarfes rhyme. Loyalty to their leader and kin is also very important to the dwarfes and they have bloodfeuds with the goblins(orcs) of moria. Also both Bilbo and Beowulf are pretty typical tragic heroes, e.g. supernatural ability (ring/strentgh), supernatural help(Gandalf/God,fate), reluctant to accept task(obvious wth Bilbo/Beowulf consults wise men berfore leaving to kill Grendel) and both are separated(Bilbo in the mountain/Beowulf when he faces Grendels mother), as well as both have honor and follow the heroic code(Bilbo gives smaragds to elves king/obvious with Beowulf). I know that some points are very common in fantasy, but since Tolkien studied Beowulf, I think it had a big influence on him and on The Hobbit and this is worth mentioning as an own point. Sorry for my bad english by the way. Matthias

Interesting...perhaps there is a greater correlation between the two. You've made several interesting points and have given good examples -- many of which seem more than just genre-related coincidence. I think you have something, and until someone reasonably disputes it, I say go ahead and add it to the main article. Ereinion File:RAHSymbol.JPG 23:10, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm working at a paper for school for this and at the same time trying to recover my account, so I'll guess you'll see something this weekend. Matthias

I'd be interested in reading anything else you could find. Ereinion File:RAHSymbol.JPG

Try google, here something I found: http://faculty.uca.edu/~jona/second/hobbeow.htm http://www.unm.edu/~medinst/resources/weblinks/tolkienweb.htm

Some are rather profound though and I don't know if they have a place in the article except in further reading. Matthias

See "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics". Tolkien published an essay on Beowulf in 1936 - a year before the Hobbit. The copy I'm reading is included in "Beowulf: A Verse Translation" ISBN  0-393-97580-0. Validation, anyone?

I made a few edits, might come back and do more when I have more time. I cut out a few things from the "Similarities to Beowulf" heading, here's why:

"While Beowulf has the help of God, Bilbo often prevails because of his sheer luck which may or may not be due to some kind of divine providence."

Redundant. Also the Christian references in Beowulf are edits by the monk(s) that made the surviving copy, which Tolkien knew and probably wouldn't have incorporated.

"Both get separated from their group, Bilbo in the mountains, Beowulf when he is captured by Grendel's mother."

Beowulf's encounter with Grendel's dam predates his encounter with the dragon by 50 years. I can't think of any parallels from Beowulf from the first two monsters, if anyone can this might bear editing & reinserting.

Edited reference to Beowulf as an "epic poem" to just "poem". Its status as an epic is highly questionable, and Tolkien himself considered it not to be one. Any "is or is not it an epic" coverage can go in a different section, here I'll stick to Tolkien's writings. 71.32.91.112 22:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to merge the articles on the 12 minor dwarf companions to create a collected Dwarves of The Hobbit (or similar) article. Each is a minor character that will never have more than a few sentences or paragraphs written about them. I think that by collecting them in one place it would make it easier to learn more about the minor dwarves. Any objections? -- Mrwojo 21:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, I think it would be misleading to put the Dwarves together like that, since much of the (relatively important) information known about them comes from sources other than The Hobbit. For example, that Glóin is the father of Gimli and is present at the Council of Elrond. -- Mrwojo 16:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• If a clock is an anachronism then it appears in LotR as well, at least by implication. The characters, Hobbits in particular, always describe the time of day by hours of the clock. I think the Antikythera mechanism demonstrates that sophisticated clockworks are well within the reach of premodern technology and that clocks are therefore not necessarily anachronistic anyway.
• The Sackville-Bagginses appear in LotR as well.
• Giants do not explicitly appear in LotR or Sil, true, but in LotR the geographical name Ettinmoors north of Rivendell preserves a reference to them. That they are not developed further and do not appear to fit well into the rest of the legendarium does not tell against their existence (quite apart from the intentions of the author, whose opinion on the matter I can't recall ATM) since at least the latter could also be said against Tom Bombadil and Goldberry. I believe Steuard Jenson has made a case for giants as a species of nature spirit in LotR.
• Although Goblins are not called Orcs, I think it was pretty clear that they were a race of man-eating humanoid warriors. I didn't read them as mere bogeymen at all. They may be toned down a bit for a younger audience, but I could see no real difference.
• "Tobacco" perhaps ought to be here, but isn't. Although some German pathologists have detected traces of tobacco (and cocaine!) in Egyptian mummies, thereby suggesting early Old World/New World ties, this postdated the writing of TH by decades and was not information available to Tolkien. He was careful to avoid the word in LotR while also postulating in the Prologue that "pipeweed" was a species of nicotiana that later became extinct in the Old World. (Which in the case of the mummies may be the true explanation.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This is all very interesting and all, but I'm not certain what it has to do with anything. Are you attempting to contrast a chronology and establish a timeline, or are you just sharing some very good research? Ereinion 04:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm commenting on the bulleted list in the "Alternative versions" section of the article. Sorry if that was unclear. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. I just didn't know the frame of context. Ereinion 17:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• An objection is made in this section that Bilbo lost his hood and cloak after falling into Gollum's cavern, yet puts them on before leaving Bag End. Is it not conceivable that he purchased a new hat and cloak during the intervening sixty years?

• Maybe i'm wrong, but Surely the necromancer of mirkwood mentioned in the hobbit several times is infact Sauron, not Saruman as the article suggests? Saruman was the leader of the white council, who investigates and drove out the necromancer from mirkwood as stated in all the other wikipedia articles. Saruman wasn't found to have sided with Sauron until later in the Lord of the Rings. Razamafez 01:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  That seems to have been a bit of stealth vandalism someone sneaked in, but I cut the whole thing anyway as it's not really an inconsistency. We know from various things said in LotR that, although it may have been known to the White Council that the Necromancer was Sauron, this was not common knowledge, and "The Necromancer" was how the dark power of Dol Guldur was generally called. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that many of these comparisons are misapplied. There's more a general similarity with other legends of northwest Europe than Beowulf as such. A direct comparison between Bilbo and Beowulf himself is extremely strained, as Bilbo is very much not an heroic character. Much of the humor in the book comes from the contrast between Bilbo's bourgeoise mannerisms and the heroic behavior of the other characters. Besides, there is a direct parallel to Beowulf in TH: Beorn. Their names even mean the same thing. For the moment I confine myself to correcting some of the more glaring errors in this section, but I really question whether it's useful at all. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I think disscecting the useful information and assimilating it back into the rest of the article may be the best thing to do and just get rid of the category altogether. Ereinion 21:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the "Beowulf hypothesis" doesn't really warrant inclusion.

This is a messy section. I've removed 2 references to Led Zepplin songs that were influenced by the Lord of the Rings - not The Hobbit, they rightfully belong in the LOTR section. I can't find Enya actually doing a song influenced by The Hobbit itself, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, if someone more into Enya could list actual Hobbit songs, or remove her. Leonard Nimoys "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins" - isn't this more of an adaptation than an influence?

Also shoudln't Adaptations come after Editions? seems more logical to me to talk about the book first, and secondary versions after? The only reason I didn't do it was I'm not sure how!-- Davémon 18:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

For influences, the album by Pink Floyd, the Piper at the Gates of Dawn, was largely influenced by the Hobbit.

Peter Jackson adapted The Lord of the Rings into films. So why didn't he do The Hobbit as well? Scorpionman 19:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's still in the planning stages. [1] TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That hobbit picture is awful. Could someone replace it with something a bit more professional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.72.130.134 ( talk • contribs)

Peter Jackson, Director of the Lord of the Rings trilogy has expressed interest in filming The Hobbit with some of his former cast returning to reprise their roles (i.e., Ian McKellan and Andy Serkis, but likely Ian Holm would not return to play Bilbo, due to the age difference.) Jackson has spoken publicly on the subject:

"Three or four years would be accurate, I would say. I think there is probably a will and a desire to try and get it made. But I think it's gonna be a lot of lawyers sitting in a room trying to thrash out a deal before it will ever happen." [2]

(Moved this here because it's a rumour, and not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry - yet! -- Davémon 18:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

how about we move the dust jacket image to the infobox and junk the image of the actual book - it seems a bit silly to have that frankly? Although it is quite interesting with the dragon motif and stuff, maybe swap them? Morwen - Talk 20:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It is standard practice to prefer the "First edition" cover in the infobox - it is the "most notable" in publishing. Being illustrated by what I take to be Tolkien himself it is probably of even more interest. If there is a dust jacket cover which was on the first edition that should be prefered - but I hav'n't found one. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 15:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Both the cover and dust-jacket images shown on the page were designed by Tolkien for the first edition. The dust jacket was originally more detailed and had more colors (red sun, two different shades of green, et cetera) but had to be simplified due to production costs. -- CBD 01:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really a difference in tone: Bilbo loses his dark green hood and cloak (borrowed from Dwalin) after falling into Gollum's cave, yet puts them on before leaving Bag End. Readers of The Hobbit will recognize that these are his old clothes (contrary to what is asserted above), since the color is the same and they're "weather-stained". Uthanc 07:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

He could possibly obtain similar new clothes during his first journey. 84.3.249.242 09:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We need to be more explicit about the differences with LoTR. For example, we currently list this as an inconsistency:

There is lighthearted use of "magic"; Gandalf is said to have given the Old Took a pair of diamond studs that "fastened themselves and never came undone till ordered", and when Bilbo tries to steal a purse from the trolls, the purse shouts.

What is the inconsistency here? We need to be clear about how this differs from LoTR.

Same goes for all the others. -- Doradus 20:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've adjusted some of them. I added a {{ fact}} tag in my discussion of Bilbo's clock. What I wrote seemed obvious to me and I'd be surprised if it was not said elsewhere, but I don't have any references to support it. I cut the mention of the elves' inhospitibleness, since that's not at all an inconsistency. Only Rivendell was hospitible; the elves of Lorien only allowed the Fellowship in as a special case. I also cut the Sackville-Baggins reference since that's not an inconsistency either; the S-Bs appear in LotR and have exactly the same character as in TH. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! What you've done is exactly what I was looking for. -- Doradus 11:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the use of matches in the Hobbit really an inconsistancy? In Out of the Frying-Pan into the Fire the narrator comments in an aside that "dwarves have never taken to matches even yet" (The Hobbit 102, London: HarperCollins, 1996). In the Hobbit, the narrator in general uses a more playful tone and more directly involves the reader and references modern times, whereas the LOTR is written in a much more high and serious style. Couldn't it just be that dwarves (and maybe other species as well) continue to prefer not to use matches in LOTR? Correct me if I am wrong, but the LOTR doesn't specifically say matches weren't invented yet, it just choses not to mention them. I don't really see this as a legitimate inconsistancy. Mllefantine 04:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a continuity error. It is, however, a good example of inconsistency of tone. Morwen - Talk 11:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time I have encountered this claim. Tolkien's biography very clearly states that a family friend named Elaine Griffiths was shown a typescript of the story in the early 1930s. When she later went to work for George Allen & Unwin, she revealed the existence of the story to a staffmember named Susan Dagnall, who in turn asked Tolkien if she could look at the (still incomplete) manuscript. He complied and Ms. Dagnall, impressed by it, urged him to complete the book. Once this was done in late 1936, she then showed the book to Stanley Unwin, who then asked his son Rayner's opinion. It is possible that Tolkien showed the book to this Reverend Mother (although the incident is not mentioned in either Carpener nor, as I recall, White), but she was not responsible for the book's publication.-- Werthead 23:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you please ammend the text to follow the Biographical version. I'm not sure where the Reverend Mother story comes from, as no sources have been cited, as such it's not really fitting for an encyclopedia entry. I've re-outlined the story as per the biography as best as I see fit, but admit it could be clearer. -- Davémon 14:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted this to the previous version - the current that I saw had been deleted. I apologise for not putting any comments in to that fact

I noticed another inconsistency while reading The Hobbit. On page 33: "Some said...they have seldom ever heard of the king round here..." Which king? Gondor's kings are gone, Arnor is ruined, the dwarves are scattered and have no king, the elves have nothing to do with dwarves, and they obviously don't mean Sauron. So who is this mysterious king? -- Imp88 08:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It could be refering to the King of Rohan, or the king that is yet to be a king (Aragorn). I have started tor ead the book again starting this morning, so once I get to that part I will post on my opinion Blipadouzi 14:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No it could not have. Tolkien hadn't invented Rohan at the time.

It was obviously supposed to refer to a king who had authority over that particular area. I don't know that the passage need be taken literally however; it simply means that it was an uncivilized area with no rule of law. (I assume this was the encounter with the trolls? I don't have the book in front of me and don't recall where this was said exactly.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The only king to ever hold sway over the Shire, Bree, and other points in the area, would have been the king of Arnor. Granted, that was a very, very long time before; but they wouldn't have forgotten that there had been a king at one time. Like TCC says, in context it's primarily indicating that the area has no official rule of law. Tolkien himself would have been thinking of the old kings of Arnor. Nuranar 14:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The current rule of thumb with regards to novels infoboxes is to only list ISBN numbers for books published after the system came into use in 1967-68, so I changed the one here to NA (not applicable). I'm curious, though, that the infobox indicated an ISBN number ( ISBN  1-131-37105-4) for a "UK first hardback edition". Was The Hobbit never published in hardback in the UK prior to 1967? 23skidoo 17:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The first UK edition was in hardback in September 1937, I've no idea what book that ISBN number refers to, my third edition (1975) is 0-04-823069-3. Thu 20:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have amended this this slightly. SmokeyTheCat 10:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This section has been flagged as Original Research. All these statements need to be attributable to a reliable secondary source (ie. not The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings). At the moment the only way for someone to check them is to read both primary sources. Unless these statements are given proper attribution they will eventually all be deleted. I'm sure there are sources out there, but unfortunately not in my Tolkien related collection, so if someone can add proper attribution to them... -- Davémon 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

File:The hobbit ced.jpg I have not even read its license ... but ... just so you know its there exit2dos2000 05:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Rankin-Bass Hobbit is mentioned under Adaptations [The Hobbit#TV] and has it's own article The Hobbit (film). If you'd like to add the laserdisc release and the image it to the The Hobbit (film) page, it should be welcome. -- Davémon 08:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In the version of The Hobbit that I read, Fili, Kili, Oin, and Gloin did not have accents on the 'i' (Fili and Kili) and the 'o' (Oin and Gloin). Can someone explain this to me? ---Signed By: KoЯnfan71 ( User Page — My Talk — Contribs) 01:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. The letters in question are in italics.

Never mind. I looked in my Lord of the Rings book, and I believe the accents are on them.... ---Signed By: KoЯnfan71 ( User Page — My Talk — Contribs) 01:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it schould be mentionend, that a German translation and publication of the "Hobbit" was already destined for 1938. But for Nazi-Germany he had to give a certificate, that he is pure aryan (Arier-Nachweis). But Tolkien refused and so the German translation took time until 1957. 91.12.103.79 13:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember where I read it, but I distinctly remember reading about the "history" of Tolkien's dragons, which stated that their wings were made of metal (as opposed to bat-hide, like most Western dragons). I was sure I'd read it either in the Silmarillion or in The Lost Road and Other Tales (I think that's what it's called--it's kind of a making-of type thing), but I've gone over both numerous times and it just doesn't seem to be there. Does anyone know where I might have heard it, and/or if it's true? 71.217.102.196 04:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This may be not what you're referring to, but Tolkien wrote about mechanical beasts attacking Gondolin in early versions of its fall (The Book of Lost Tales Vol. 2). Uthanc 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement

and his concept of Middle-earth was to change and evolve throughout his life and writings.

cites the 12-volume History of Middle-earth as its source. I think this could be improved by converting it to a footnote describing HoMe or by citing a more specific source. -- Mrwojo 03:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The designation of The Hobbit as a children's book keeps getting edited-out of the intro paragraph and changed to "Fantasy Novel" or something-or-other. Whilst the Hobbit may be enjoyed by many adults it is most certainly a children's story, and is listed as such on Children's Literature Canon, the US publishers website Houghton Mifflin, and the " Mythopoeic Fantasy Award for Children’s Literature honors books for younger readers (from “Young Adults” to picture books for beginning readers), in the tradition of The Hobbit...", W. H Auden calls it a children's story in his review of FoTR in the New York Times | link - even the original decision to publish the book was largely influenced on the favorable review of a child. -- Davémon 17:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:The hobbit ced.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:TheHobbit FirstEdition.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a fair use rationale at Image:TheHobbit FirstEdition.jpg so hopefully this won't need to be deleted. I think this definitely qualifies as fair use. -- JayHenry 06:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Nomination this article should be nominated for an award. -- Cman7792 14:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Note - someone should create a proper archive box. Carcharoth 22:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Mrwojo 03:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Hobbit (2009 film) is so messy, and I feel what little that has happened of the production so far should be accumulated here. Alientraveller 09:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should be condensed and put into this article, at least until any real confirmation of production comes. - Joltman 12:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Very nicely done! There was too much extraneous information before about the whole development fiasco, and it has been compressed appropriately and provided an encyclopedic tone. Since there is still a struggle to produce this film, I think it would be best to merge this to the source material, per notability guidelines for films. When production actually begins, of course, this article can be recreated. Right now, though, a lot of things are misleading, like the release year of the film. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and the article has been merged. Alientraveller 14:11, 17 August 2007

This merge is innapropriate. The Hobbit book and The Hobbit film are 2 completely things. The Hobbit book article should be about the book work; including book plot, author, work it has infuenced, games made from it, and other info. The Hobbit film has alot of info about the hobbit movies, there will be 2 movies, and stuff people actually care about. You can't just take an article, crumble it up into a paragraph, and scram it into another article. That only ruins the quality of what you are reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 ( talk • contribs)

I disgree. The merge was done well. I've repaired the talk page. Please don't remove comments by others like you did here. Carcharoth 22:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. The hobbit film has not even started preproduction yet. I'd say wait til it actually starts being made before making a page about it. Most of the stuff on the old page was fluff anyhow.-- Lendorien 22:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The merge was fully appropriate and handled exceptionally well. The whole cycle from it's early creation to it's final merge helped stop a lot of inappropriate fancruft being placed on The Hobbit page. I look forward to The Hobbit (movie) page when it's due. -- Davémon 20:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

First two paragraphs are remarkably similar to that found here http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/booksbytolkien/hobbit/description.htm ( copyvio)

See http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/disclaimer.htm

Though I don't know if permission has been sought etc.. 87.102.81.184 17:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

3rd and 4th paragraphs are also too similar for comfort. (possible copyvio) 87.102.81.184 17:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Also

The_Hobbit#Writing_the_Book compare http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/press/69thanniversary.htm

I can't say that this page is the one at fault - but it needs looking into. 87.102.81.184 17:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC) This revision http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Hobbit&oldid=155663023

Did you verify that the article on TolkienLibrary.com is not the text in violation? The article on TolkienLibrary.com has a date of September 21st, 2006. Here is Wikipedia's version from August 31st 2006 which includes the text. This leads me to believe Wikipedia is not violating any copyright, but TolkienLibrary.com is. Edit: I know the webmaster personally and will contact him about using Wikipedia's content without citing it, but I don't see any need for the copyright template on this article. -- Hyarion 17:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if i'm editing this correctly, first time on wiki. Hyarion contacted me on this matter, thanks Hy. Well I recall very well writing this article since I was discussing the content (concerning Elaine Griffiths and the Reverend Mother St. Teresa Gale) with Johan Vanhecke and Wayne Hammond during that time. Most of the texts had been written by me earlier on and must date back to 2002 or 2003 when I originally wrote them on an older version of my website. As far as I am concerned I believe both mine and both wikipedia articles are based upon these earlier versions. I tend to write sources as I use them... as you can see at the bottom of that same article mentioned. My texts have been used and reused all over the internet and even published in books (fe. the complete introduction of the art of Ruth Lacon)... wikipedia is allowed to reproduce all my texts, my main purpose is to spread info and enjoy myself writing stuff. In the end it all ends up everywhere anyways, i can't bother about that any longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TolkienLibrary ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. The best thing to do is probably to rewrite the text so it doesn't look like a copyvio (otherwise people will worry about this in the future), and to source the information to your website. Some bits, like the 1955 letter, can be sourced direct to books like The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien. Would you mind if I asked how much of what is on your website is sourced to stuff that we can cite (such as The Annotated Hobbit), and how much is your own, independent, original research? It is the original stuff that you publish (eg. "The original printing numbered a mere 1,500 copies" is an example of something a reader would want to be able to verify in the sources), if any, that we would need to use your site as a reference for. Carcharoth 22:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well this is how I work most of the times. I take a subject and then start looking up info in books like Letters, Companion & Guide, Bibliography, Descriptive Bilbiography, Tolkien collector etc. and I take notes on paper, next to that I add content that I just know from what I have been reading for over 15 years. I also have a large archive of unfinished articles like this on my computer which I tend to get back to in later stages; plus I tend to recycle older bits and pieces I wrote in older pblished articles... then I work it out on paper till I get where I want to go to and then type it all out. Most of the times these articles are sent first to some other sholars (like Johan Vanhecke in this case) and get his opinion and make some alterations. Since I'm most of the time writing for hobby and write a lot back and forth with the Tolkien publishers my sources can be either books, persons within the publishing houses, authors themselves or specific texts from Tolkien fanzines. I have started lately to quote the names of the persons within the publishing houses, or authors themselves... but as I said this article is quit old and since then I have learned a lot and changed my working method a lot. I think we should indeed re-write this article... either here or on my site (doesn't matter to me), since most info used is slightly outdated. We should integrate the new info on this topic that has been published in both the Companion and Guide and the History of the Hobbit. I read both two volume books and I can see clearly that I would now write some elements completely different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TolkienLibrary ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't even finished reading the first Rateliff book yet! But yes, as more stuff is published, stuff like this needs updating all the time. Like anyone else, you would be very welcome to edit here on Wikipedia, if you found time after keeping your site updated! One idea I had the other day was to try and compile a list of reliable sources for Tolkien-related articles. The standard books would be first on the list. The real aim of such an exercise, though, would be to try and find out which websites are the most reliable ones out there. Which websites have an editorial process, are professionally written, and check their facts? Do you know which websites out there are reliable? I've seen an awful lot that get stuff wrong, including, sadly, this one (Wikipedia). But then that is why Wikipedia insists (in theory) on sourcing facts and claims to a reliable external source. In practice, that can take a while to happen. Hopefully things will improve soon. Carcharoth 23:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who (if anyone!) is at fault as I mentioned above. Either way that content will need its source citing when this issue is resolved. 87.102.81.184 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've removed the copyvio template as this issue is being actively discussed. The copyvio template is for use when an entire article is a copyvio. See the instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright violations: "If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringement, then it may be deleted following the procedures on the votes page." Also, a better page to look at is Wikipedia:Copyright problems, where it says: "If you are not sure who originally authored the material, list it here instead for investigation.". The correct procedure for small amounts of suspected copyvio text is to remove it and discuss on the talk page. Only if the whole page is a copyvio, and there are no non-infringing versions to reveret to, should you use {{ copyvio}}, and when you do use that, you should blank the entire page and replace it with the template, not just stick it on the top of the page. Hope that helps. I'll go and remove the text that may be a problem, so we can discuss here. Carcharoth 19:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

ok - I've already added the article to the list of possible copyright things here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems, erm I hope that was the right list. The template did seem a bit severe - so I ignored the stuff about blanking - I couldn't find a template for 'this section may contain a copyright issue' which would have been more suitable, I don't think one exists. I'll leave it to you to do the removing. 87.102.81.184 20:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've been ferreting through the page history, and I think that the text starting with the Auden letter in 1955 is definitely not a problem, it goes back a lot further than the August 2006 date of that website article. Given that, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the other bit of text, at least until Hyarion hears back from the author of that site. Thanks for reminding me about the listing at Copyright Problems. I'll remove it from there, but we must all keep an eye on this until it is resolved one way or the other. Carcharoth 20:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave this template here for now in case the other article turns out to not be the source in which case we'll need a source.{{Unreferencedsection|date=Sept 2007}} 87.102.20.77 21:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Decided to add the unreference bit - temporarily until the provenance is sorted out, it's better than the HUGE copyright notice, and it is applicable here. 87.102.20.77 21:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a link to "tolkien library" in that section and removed the template. Thanks to those who sorted it out and thanks to the person who wrote the original - which I have to say I really like the quality of his writing and the style he writes in - good work and very professional. 87.102.89.127 14:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Almost every animail in The Hobbit can talk. Though this does not seem to be th ecase in The Lord Of The Rings. Though I have not read The Lord Of The Rings, only seen the films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackbergin ( talk • contribs) 00:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is touched on in The_Hobbit#Differences_and_inconsistencies note the talking purse, the hobbit is much more aimed at children as is mentioned in the text. It might be worth adding your observation to that list - if you wish. 87.102.89.127 14:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a source which states that talking animals are in contrast to the Lord of The Rings (which does have a fox which thinks aloud in English in the book), or discusses the literary effect that it has within the Hobbit, then please add it to the article. Without sources, the observation, whilst largely accurate, would be considered " Original Research" -- Davémon 12:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone, the plot in the hobbit article is way too long. that is probably why the article is rated on the b class instead of an a. lets shorten up the plot and make it not take up more than half the page. thank you. -- Cman7792 20:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

i fixed up the plot. in fact i fixed up the article and it is much better now. it will definitely be on the a scale now.-- Cman7792 23:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Cman7792, your edits are poorly informed, poorly executed, and do not contribute. Bilbo was not a "young little hobbit"; he was 51 years old and we have no reason to think he was small as hobbits go. Your entire set of edits displays a similar lack of knowledge and sophistication. They're also riddled with syntactical errors. Please don't edit things you're not expert in. Everyone agrees the article is too big, too invested with everyone's pet little ideas, and unbalanced in scope. The solution is not for some random wiki fiddler to walk in, hack away whatever doesn't interest "him" or her, and rewrite the rest; the solution would be professional editing followed with locking down the article. Since that's not going to happen, at least have the decency to respect the substantial and informative contributions that have come before. Strebe 03:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Cman7792 has every right to make bold edits. The removal of the "differences and inconsistencies" was perfectly justifiable , as it's been flagged [WP:OR] for months now and no "expert" in the subject has found any sources.I suggest this edit stands, and will implement it myself and the material can be reintroduced as sources are found. The plot-summary Cman provided, whilst incorrect on some matters of detail and tone, would be more easily fixed with many small edits (as is the way of things normally) than the over-long summary that has been reverted to. -- Davémon 08:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The existing plot summary isn't extremely over-long in my opinion. If others feel the same way, I think we'd be in agreement that this could be more easily fixed with many small edits (as is the way of things normally). Apart from this, Cman7792 made numerous rash changes that have also been reverted: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] -- Mrwojo 17:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines#Plot_summary suggests that 4 paragraphs for a very complex novel is a good target. The Hobbit has 8 paragraphs and takes the form of a straight-forward episodic quest. By this yard-stick, the plot synopsys is overly long, and contains too much incidental detail in attempting to re-tell the story. --12:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Davémon

My judgment is based on featured articles in literature: The Old Man and the Sea (6ish), Uncle Tom's Cabin (9), Starship Troopers (9), The Well of Loneliness (5). The plot summary in the FA for Make Way for Ducklings, a children's picture book, is three paragraphs. -- Mrwojo 16:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I've put a comment on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines#Plot_summary_length to the effect that their advice is out of line with FA practice. If you'd like to include your voice there, then the styleguide should get changed to reflect best practice. -- Davémon 19:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I pasted my tallies there. For what it's worth, the current plot summary here is about 552 words. Comparative estimated word counts are: The Old Man and the Sea (582), Uncle Tom's Cabin (~950), Starship Troopers (1081), The Well of Loneliness (614), Make Way for Ducklings (382). Starship Troopers seems particularly long, even without knowing the word count (Uncle Tom's Cabin reads more easily thanks to sub-headings). -- Mrwojo 23:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between bold edits and hasty edits. "if you have a page so long and unorganized it could confuse them" - burden of proof's on you, and "unorganized" is your POV... I understand the need for conciseness, but let's not sacrifice meaning for it; never mind sword names, the plot summary doesn't even mention Elrond and Beorn's real roles. Probably should be rewritten from scratch. Uthanc 15:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a tag to one section - as it is a direct copy , see Talk:The Hobbit#The Hobbit#editions copyvio - I'm not sure if it really needs rewriting - as the person whose work was copied seemed ok with it..

I'll leave the tag for someone else to take the correct action. 87.102.17.252 16:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made a small trunaction of the plot summary - removing non-essentials - though not down to a four paragraph guidline - I think it's a little better, though shortening is difficult in what is a event rich story.. 87.102.21.91 13:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The plot synopsis needs ruthless vigilance to keep it terse and coherent. Details like Elrond being an Elf-friend or Esgaroth being another name for Lake-town are useless in conveying the highlights of the story. Nothing that shows up in the description of characters in the Characters section should be repeated in the synopsis. If an incident does not powerfully contribute to plot development, it should not be mentioned in the synopsis.

How did Bilbo find himself on the quest? Because Gandalf wanted him to go and pressured him into it. Why did Gandalf want him to go? Because the dwarves had no plan and no real hope of succeeding. Gandalf understood he needed to inject a little benign chaos into the quest, and he seems to have had a premonition that Bilbo should be the source. He also knew the dwarves would resist. He overcame their resistance by revealing the secret door, which could be of use to a "burglar"... and Bilbo would be the burglar.

Hence it's important to mention: the council with the dwarves; the revelation of the map; the notion of a "burglar"; and the fact that Gandalf used good-natured deception to arrange both the council and the working relationship.

The fact that Gandalf needed to save the party early on is important because it shows they were incapable of even surviving the quest on their own. When Gandalf is gone they still need help, and Bilbo is the one who will step in.

Hence it's important to mention: the trolls and the goblins in the mountains, disasters from which Gandalf saves them; the ring and its acquisition, which are crucial to Bilbo saving first himself and then the others; the fact that Bilbo saved himself from the goblins; how Bilbo's account of his escape was received by the party; and how Bilbo goes on to save the dwarves.

Bilbo evolves into a character of competence, and the plot reaches its climax. What are the major elements of the climax? There is a dragon that needs to be disposed of. How did they get rid of the dragon? There is a treasure everyone wants. What happened to the treasure? And, finally, what happened to Bilbo?

Hence it's important to mention: Lake-town, which is instrumental in killing Smaug; how Smaug was killed; the fact that the treasure is claimed by elves, dwarves, and men, setting up conflict; Bilbo's ploy to avert war; the war itself and how it was won; how Bilbo's relationship with the dwarves resolves; and how Bilbo ends up.

Particular incidents which do not further the important elements of the plot: Elrond and the stay at Rivendell (merely a pleasant diversion); the goblin and Warg attack after the escape from the Misty Mountains (since the group was passively rescued); the stay at Beorn's domicile (merely a fantastic diversion); and details about any of the characters other than Bilbo.

Strebe 06:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There's far too much OR in some of this, in particular your analysis of Gandalf's motives for adding Bilbo to the group. Some of it might be sourced from "The Quest for Erebor", but that was a retcon on Tolkien's part; he had none of it in mind when he actually wrote TH. It's clear that the quest is very dangerous, but its nowhere said it's undertaken with no real hope of success, or that Gandalf included Bilbo for any reason other than those he gave. "Quixotic"? Thorin had a large army a few day's march away he could call on if he needed them, as he in fact did. Nobody with those kind of resources can really be "quixotic" about anything he's doing.

As far as Bilbo's role in the "council" goes, it was to host a party per the name of the first chapter, but that's really not an important distinction.

And there is indeed an important plot-point involving Elrond; the reading of the moon-letters of which Elrond knows but Gandalf seems clueless, that gives the secret to using the key.

However, I quite agree with your basic point about out-of-control synopses. Vigilence is needed to prevent the addition of every fan editor's favorite bits. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

We're going to have to disagree here. I have not read "Quest for Erebor". I'm just stating what the story says. The dwarves themselves acknowledge several times in Chapter 2 that their chances are slim. Much is made of the revelation of the door, with Thorin stating, "Now things begin to look more hopeful. This news alters them much for the better," which he continues to elaborate on in great detail, explicitly admitting they had no plan. Gandalf already knew this, stating, "That is why I settled on burglary," because there wasn't anything the dwarves could realistically do on their own. Without the motives, the story is just an improbable and confused sequence of events, which is what this plot summary keeps falling into as people randomly edit it.

An army of dwarves was useless against Smaug; Thorin was only able to call on them after Smaug was out of the way. As far as Elrond reading the moon-letters goes, that's just trivia and drama. It's not important to the coherency of the plot. The door could just as well have been hidden amongst the boulders whilst serving the same purpose as the enchanted door did. We need to stay focused on critical elements. That, at least, we seem to agree on. Let's be astute in our assessment of "critical" so that we can keep the synopsis lucid and within the guidelines.— Strebe 23:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The story is an improbable and confused series of events. As a plot it not only doesn't hang together well, it doesn't hang together at all until it finally achieves coherency in its final chapters. So the synopsis might as well reflect that. When it comes to the driving force behind the plot, this book has a huge problem, what's sometimes called the "why now?" problem. We don't know why the dwarves decided to go after Smaug right then. We also don't know the totality of what was in Thorin's mind about making the attempt with such a small company, how Gandalf got involved, why Gandalf got involved if the quest really was as hopeless as all that, or what he might have said to convince Thorin that this was the best way to do it, not from TH at least. We're told why later, in the appendices to LotR and we get even more from UT, and retcon or not, we might as well let the author impute motives and states of mind to his own characters. If other voices are called for, such as judgments such as the dwarves' "quixotic" character, they should be left to the secondary sources we ought to be citing for them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your argument now amounts to, "I think the plot is an improbable and confused series of events, and therefore the synopsis should be, too." Meanwhile I have shown that the plot largely makes sense if you interpret the actions of the characters just as they're reported. I've supplied quotes from the book to that effect. There are plenty more where they come from. We are obliged by the synopsis format to carefully choose which anecdotes from the book we report and how much importance we give them. We can go with your theory, which provides no guidance and allows anyone to decide with equal legitimacy that their favorite frivolous incident is important, or we can let the book tell us what's important so that we can create a terse, coherent synopsis from it. You do allow that the plot ties up at the end, but we have no way to tie it up in the synopsis with your method, and no reason to have to if you simply let the synopsis do its work properly.

At this point it sounds a lot like you're being obstinate and just hate the word "quixotic"; otherwise I can't imagine why you'd defend the position you've staked out. Yes, all thirteen are quixotic: the quest is quixotic, and they're all invested in the quest. Though the participants don't use that word specifically, the word quite succinctly summarizes what they themselves admit once Gandalf unveiled the map. Why Thorin & Company chose their timing or why Gandalf chose to be involved are secondary. The book is about the hobbit, not about them, so invoking those examples just doesn't work, particularly with regard to the synopsis. It's Bilbo's story. Not Thorin's. Not Gandalf's. Not Elrond's. Not Beorn's. Bilbo's. Can we please focus on Bilbo and his story?

I'm rapidly losing interest; the crushing entropy of this entry is a paragon of what Wikipedia is bad at. The topic is too controversial. Too many people want to leave their mark, regardless of the cost and largely, apparently, oblivious to that cost (and apparently to much else). Nevertheless, I will again stress that Chapter 2 clearly states, across much blatant text, that the quest was unmotivated without the map and Gandalf's plan to employ a "burglar". This is why and how Gandalf involved Bilbo in the quest. It's all right there, plain as day in the text itself. It doesn't take any interpretation; it only takes the will to adopt the most reasonable course and stick to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strebe ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For "quixotic" to be correct it requires insight into the states of mind of the characters that is simply not given in the book, and what insight is given in other sources contradicts it. I raised all those issues because they all speak to the motivation you're simply assuming with no real information behind it beyond your extrapolation of a couple of remarks that could mean almost anything. That makes it OR. One is not "obstinate" because one thinks that your personal opinion is in error.

And I was saying nothing at all about what the synopsis should look like apart from this single word, and apart from the final line of my first post to this thread. I do happen to think your reasoning behind the omission of Elrond is a lot of arm-waving with no substance, but I'm far more interested in cutting down synopses than adding to them, so adding it the last thing I would insist on.

On the other hand, I might be validly accused of misreading something you said by skimming too quickly. I took the first sentence of a paragraph to be its topic and skipped to the end to see what you were saying about it. Which is why I thought your "coherence" bit related to the army of dwarves and not the Rivendell episode. On that general topic -- yes, you can string together a coherent plot, but it's a very thin one for a book of that length. One might argue that for the amount of material you have to elide to do that, which includes much of what many people appear to find charming about it, we might as well not have a synopsis at all. (I don't count that as a strike against, personally.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

the problems with the plot synopsis appear to be more in the detail that is given to certain episodes, rather than the selection of episodes themselves. Beorn is important because it shows Gandalfs drip-feed technique of introducing people as part of Bilbo's education. Rivendell as well becuase it contrasts (with the Mirkwood elves) the conceptions of what an Elf is. And the eagles present a theme of eucatastrophe - cerainly an important idea to the author. Nontheless, it's not up to wikipedia editors to make these decisions. Is it possible to be summarise the whole book with as little bias, emphasis, embellishment, commentary and editorialising as possible, and let the reader decide what is important? -- Davémon 10:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Davémon: Can we reasonably mention something in the summary if the justification for its mention cannot be inferred from the mention? The drip-feed technique is a theme not mentioned elsewhere in the article and impossible to infer from your edit, since your edit does not mention the drip-feeding introductions. It only mentions the episode which, in the original text, demonstrates the drip-feed technique. The same holds for Rivendell: mentioning visiting Elrond does not further the conception of elves, since the elves are not developed well enough in the plot summary to draw any contrasts between Rivendell and Mirkwook — and in any case I question if those ideas would merit hinting at even in a much longer synopsis of a story that's supposed to be about a hobbit. Your edits do not contain (and can't reasonably contain) enough detail to evoke eucatastrophe meaningfully. Hence the Wargs and eagles episode does not belong on those grounds, either. All of these ideas must develop from reading the book. We can't hope to convey them in a synopsis, and I aver that none of the attempts to include the episodes in the plot summary have succeeded in conveying the ideas behind them.

I'm not suggesting the elements you're discussing aren't important. I'm suggesting we're dealing with a Wikipedia plot summary with strong constraints on scope and length. I could justify mention of the barrels, the Sackville-Bagginses, Sting, the Laketown Master, pipe-weed, Dol Guldur, or anything else in the book on some grounds or another, and sure enough, along the way, all of these elements have showed up in the summary. We just don't have that luxury in a synopsis. The Rivendell, Wargs and eagles, and Beorn episodes all have their place in the book, but as plot elements they are diversions: they do not contribute to the flow of the plot or of the development of Bilbo's character in any direct way, most particularly in any way evident from within the constraints of the summary. Strebe ( talk) 21:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I made my point very clearly. The plot summary is not supposed to tell people what is important, or why they are important, but to summarise the plot. For example, the current troll sentence does not explain why that episode is important "to the plot". If we wanted to write about how some readers see the main point of the story as being:

• the initiative transfer from Gandalf to Bilbo (which the Trolls help illustrate)
• the change in tone from fairy-tale to epic (of which the elvish concept shift is part)

The proper way to do that is in the "themes" section, not by ommiting events from the plot summary so it fits one particular reading.

Elrond, the flight from the Goblins, the rescue by the Eagles, and the staying with Beorn consist of entire chapters of the book, not just passing comments or incidental detail. Surely the purpose of a plot summary is to describe the plot as it appears in the book rather than proscribe one specific reading of the books narrative? IMHO It is not the job of wikipedia or its editors to decide what sequence of events is important to defining a linear plot - but to describe the contents of the book in a consise, unbiased and encyclopedic manner. Davémon ( talk) 12:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your thesis seems to be that "bulk of narrative" in the original text should determine how much space the synopsis should devote to the episode — or at least whether something merits attention. I will address this point below, but for now I will point out that you have already undermined that thesis with There the elves tease them. That takes up less than two pages in the original text, and even then only because most of it is a song formatted loosely with short stanzas. Meanwhile you slight other incidents covering more words of text, such as the dwarves' songs, wandering lost and starving in Mirkwood, the barrel rescue, Gandalf introducing the dwarves to Bilbo and to Beorn, the return journey, the Trolls' hoard, the logistics of hosting the dwarves at the "party", the mountain storm...

Why did you do this? Because you have an agenda. It is fantasy to think you can condense a book into four paragraphs without "bias". Every narrative has an agenda, including a narrative about a narrative. This is not a controversial notion — it never has been, and particularly is not in modern academia. Recognizing the agenda and the bias so that you can use it to best effect is the proper way to go about it, not to pretend what oneself is doing is somehow above the petty fray.

I have stated my agenda above in great detail: to provide the reader with a coherent plot summary, focused on the protagonist and his development, within the confines of the Wikipedia guidelines. Not on the many themes, not on Tolkien's greater legendarium, not on the pretty scenery Tolkien infuses his works with, not on the many other characters. The plot, consistent with the original and consistent with itself, so that the reader can follow it without thinking it's unmotivated or that "she" must have missed something. I do not pretend that can be done without bias. Judgments must be made about what to include and exclude. Does it contribute to the coherency of the plot summary? Mention it; otherwise don't. We have four paragraphs to condense a monumental work. We can't afford diversions.

You wish to call the gathering a "party" because the chapter title calls it a party. You seem to believe by doing this you have avoided bias. I disagree, and particularly strongly. Tolkien calls it a party facetiously. It's a JOKE. It makes no sense to call it a party in the synopsis because the context for the joke is missing. Your bias as a literalist misleads the reader and contradicts Thorin: We are met to discuss out plans, our ways, our means, policy and devices. Thorin is describing a council, not a party. And that is indeed what they did: they met in council. The "party" aspect of it was incidental and humorous.

You're making judgment calls about what to include and what to leave out. That's fine. You have to. I'm asking you for your theory about how to make those judgments. I've given you mine, and I've defended it in my edits to the article. You've told me yours is to describe the contents of the book in a consise [sic], unbiased and encyclopedic manner. That's impossible and you've already contradicted it with your own edits. If you really believe the proper criteria should be based on number of words devoted to an episode in the original, then I guess we better start counting words. But that's the wrong way to go about it. It won't give the reader a coherent view of the story any more than calling a "council" a "party" will give a coherent view of what actually happened. Strebe ( talk) 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's called a party (by the narrator) in chapter 2 as well, let's not omit evidence to try to make a point. I've taken into account the issue raised and given more context to the "party" statement without adding more than a few characters to the summary. We aren't restricted to 4 paragraphs, but we do need to keep things consise (and spelled correctly!). Can you see any real ( WP:NPOV / WP:BIAS / [[WP:V] / WP:OR]) problems with the synopsis as it stands now? Davémon ( talk) 12:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Still fixated on what it's called rather than on what it is? It doesn't look like we'll get beyond this. Yes, there was a party involved. No, the party aspect of it wasn't important. Gandalf didn't arrange the affair in order for them to party. He arranged the affair in order for them to meet in council. They met in council. The results of that council — not the contents of Bilbo's larder — determined the entire course of the story. It seems you're more interested in literalism than on helping the reader understand what happened.

You are correct: we are not constrained to some fixed number of words in the synopsis. But your selection of material to present reflects your own interests, not a digest measured against any objective criteria. I've already mentioned many episodes not mentioned in the synopsis that have more words devoted to them in the book than the utterly frivolous fact that the elves at Rivendell teased the party. That incident does not belong in the synopsis. You've put it there because of your bias toward things elvish. Would you like me to survey the many professional editors I've worked with for their opinion about it? Are you confident anyone would agree with your profoundly personal agenda that you're presenting to the entire world in this forum?

What would happen to the synopsis if every wiki-fiddler who wandered along did the same thing, stuffing in whatever personal favorites they accumulated in their reading of the book? We've already seen what happens: an incoherent mess. What you've written is coherent to you because you already know what you're talking about and you have an idea of what's important to you. Fine. But that's personal. You've alluded to bulk of text in the original narrative as a criterion for judging whether an incident merits mention in the synopsis. Do you wish to defend that idea? Have you thought through what that really means? Do you realize that seminal events will get left out because they only take up a few sentences in the book?

I appreciate the work you put into this article. You're an important caretaker for the body of it at large, and you're a primary reason for the huge improvements the article has seen in the past few months. None of us are experts on everything, though. I've left much of the rest of the article alone because, though I have a good bit of knowledge about large swaths of it, I'm not necessarily the best person to make those edits. I think you should think long and hard about what you're really trying to do with the synopsis, and what it would mean if everyone else did the same thing. Your agenda is not serving the reading public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strebe ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If any points are being made about improving the article, they are completely lost in all the ad hominem arguments and I can't find them. Hopefully we'll get the article to FA status this year! -- Davémon ( talk) 19:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You've helpfully provided a link to ad hominem. I heartily recommend you study it, since it's unrelated to anything I wrote — although accusing someone of ad hominem as a way to evade engaging his arguments might itself be an ad hominem attack. Plot summary of my clear points about improving the plot summary: devise, and stick to, objective criteria for what merits inclusion in the synopsis. Avoid subjective judgments, thereby avoiding subjective edits and endless edit wars. Strebe ( talk) 08:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A NPOV, objective criteria:

1) The Hobbit is an episodic novel. Each episode must be included.

2) Where characters or things are named, the nature of their role within the episode must be described.

3) It needs to stick to what the source actually says, and use the terms it uses.

As far as I can see, the plot summary is doing the above, so the objective criteria above are fulfilled. If you'd like to help refine those criteria, that would be good, and what further criteria do you propose, and how is the plot summary lacking by them? Perhaps we could invite some people from wikiproject novel and wikiproject middle-earth to help? Davémon ( talk) 09:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The literary themes and stylistic tone of the novel should be held separately from the story of it's conception and publication.. They simply aren't the same thing, and readers unfamiliar or newly familiar with the book will be looking for this kind of information with relative ease, rather than expecting it to be buried around other in other sections. Unless somebody has a compelling reason why this shouldn't be the case, and has to deviate from WP:NOVEL? -- Davémon 08:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Can some one look at the section I've renamed 'introduction' the previous version had an awful link to a page that had factual errors and other problems.. We already have a plot summary - so what is needed is an introduction to the book. 87.102.10.190 16:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone do a complete rewrite of that section - it looks like the second half is a copvio from the referenced book. Preferably introducing the key facts before starting the analysis. 87.102.10.190 16:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed what was left to here

"Introduction The Hobbit, or There and Back Again is a children's book set in a western european fantasy setting known as Middle-earth and follows the quest of home-loving Bilbo Baggins on his adventure into more dangerous parts of the world in order to reach and win his share of Smaug the Dragon's hoard. Through accepting the nature of his " Tookish" half (a disrespectable, romantic, fey and adventurous side of his family tree) and utilising both his wits and common sense during the quest, Bilbo develops a level of maturity, competence and wisdom. ^[1] The events of The Hobbit take place during the " Third Age" of Middle-earth, ^[2]."

We already have an introductory paragraph, and a plot summary - perhaps any useful bits could be moved to different sections. 87.102.10.190 16:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to suggest movinf the 'concept and creation' section to be the first section? 87.102.10.190 16:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Some statements have been marked with {{fact}}:

Tolkien made other small changes in order to conform the narrative to events in The Lord of the Rings and in the ideas he was continually developing for the Quenta Silmarillion.

Tolkien introduced or mentioned characters and places that figured prominently in his legendarium, specifically Elrond and Gondolin, along with elements from Germanic legend.

{{ME-fact}} is better... also, this is probably common knowledge to many fans, but what book (or letter) states these? Carpenter's biography? A volume in the History of Middle-earth series? Uthanc 07:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

These have been removed, but they are correct. Sources???? Uthanc 12:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

They aren't correct at all. No single change was made to the text to make it adhere to the Quenta Silmarillion. No other "characters and places" appear in the legendarium, Gondolin and Elrond are singular. Or at least nothing in Letters nor Biography, nor The Annotated Hobbit, nor HoME says so. -- Davémon 12:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes were made to the journey between Hobbiton and Rivendell to reflect the geographic changes in LotR. They are certainly mentioned in the Annotated Hobbit, I'm sure they're mentioned in HoMe, I can't recall if they're in History of The Hobbit. Thu 08:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That Tolkien made changes to the Hobbit due to writing the LOTR is well covered in the article. Citations for any changes to the Hobbit re: Bag-End to the Last Homely House would be welcome. Nontheless what really requires sources are the statements that the Hobbit was altered to fit the Quenta Silmarillion and that figures from his "legendarium" other than Elrond and Gondolin were introduced in it.-- Davémon 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tolkien made changes to The Hobbit to bring it more in line with Silm (and LotR) and yes there were other elements from the legendarium included. Mirkwood was originally Taur-nu-fuin. The 'dungeons of the Necromancer' wherein Gandalf found Thrain where originally the same 'dungeons of the Necromancer' wherein Beren was held. References to the 'flat world' version of the mythology were edited in later editions to allow for the later 'round world' conception. Et cetera. I'll try to make some updates later today. -- CBD 16:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've revised this section in light of Rateliff's work, eliminating the misstatement that Elaine Griffiths worked at A&U (she never did), and removing the Carpenter-derived misprision that the manuscript was unfinished. Solicitr ( talk) 16:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind to add citations to Rateliff for the "CS Lewis" statement and the "finished manuscript" statement - I'm sure Carpenter is more widely read, and the discrepancies between them may cause it to be challenged down the road. -- Davémon ( talk) 19:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

On previous readings of revised text of The Hobbit, I had been curious about the original version of the chapter Riddles in the Dark — the preface states that the text was changed, claiming that the revision is the corrected version based on Gandalf later insisting that Bilbo's story/diary were not completely truthful. Gandalf manages to get the facts out of Bilbo. The preface goes on to suggest that Bilbo's desire to lie was itself an indication of the ring's evil nature.

Anyway, I do not know how or if this synopsis should be incorporated into the article. The "original" is based on the 1938 Houghton Mifflin Co. (Boston & New York) edition, pp. 80-96. I just read the chapter from a reference copy at my library. The "revised" is a Ballantine printing from the early 1970s.

I'll let others decide what to do with this synopsis. Perhaps it qualifies as original research.

— Eoghanacht ^talk 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You might be able to reference some discussion of this from the Anderson and Rateliff books, but the table at the moment is almost certainly too detailed for the article itself. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the chart would be way too much for the article. What I found interesting is that based on my reading of the revised preface (and the text in this article) I had assumed that Gollum actually gave Bilbo the ring after losing the riddle game. Tolkien really did not have to change much of the text to imply a different level of the ring's power.— Eoghanacht ^talk 16:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

since the hobbit movie is officially confirmed, a separate page for the hobbit must be made. -- Cman7792 ( talk) 21:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Just because they confirm they are going to make it does not mean that it will be made. They cannot even write the film at the moment because of the strike, and actors and directors strike in June/July.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with (Contact me). Right now, all we know is that the movies are planned and that Peter Jackson is going to produce them. Creating an article would go against WP:NOT. It's stated in this article already and in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. That's good enough for now. dposse ( talk) 02:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Who says it will be written by an American scriptwriter? Drew ( talk) 11:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Pulled the prequel information from the trilogy page. The Hobbit film(s) are a 'go', with Shaye and Jackson agreeing on the production. Pejorative.majeure ( talk) 16:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, per WP:FUTFILMS. There's not even a director. Alientraveller ( talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Has their ever been any significant criticism over the fact that the main character is hired as a thief (even if he is stealing back what the dwarfs own)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.10.127.241 ( talk) 01:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

didnt they mention it in a song or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.49.98 ( talk) 20:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• There have been many bands over the years to put references from The Hobbit in their songs, as well as The Lord of the Rings. I'm sure you could find hundreds of songs that have subtle (even obvious) references to the trilogy and prequel. - Kanogul ^{( talk)} 16:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, this article is supported reasonably well with citations to sources that appear to be appropriate and reliable. However, a number of important statements remain unsourced, which will be a problem if this article is nominated as a featured article candidate (as I hope it eventually will be). I have marked some of these with the "citations" needed" template in hopes that those with the necessary knowledge can "fill-in" the needed references. Simmaren ( talk) 16:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we all want good citations, but you've stuck the citation marker on a lot of places that don't need them and shouldn't have them. For example: where links to other articles ARE the citations, or where the paragraph following a broad statement is followed by explanation that contains citations. I've removed these markers. Strebe ( talk) 23:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to reconsider. The links to other articles on Wikipedia are unlikely to pass on featured article review without specific references, especially since the articles on English-language editions and Translations of the Hobbit are themselves not footnoted, and the statement in The Lord of the Rings that Tolkien's publishers asked for a sequel is not footnoted. I don't doubt that the information is correct, but it should be properly sourced. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'm not going to reverse your edit, however, as I'm trying to make helpful suggestions, not provoke an edit war. Simmaren ( talk) 23:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

How would you recommend citing the editions? They ARE the citations. Is there some way to cite them that makes more sense than noting the publisher, year, and title, which is what they have? By all means, let's do whatever makes sense. As far as the request for a sequel goes, a specific citation would be fine; feel free to add a request for citation there. I removed the one in that paragraph because it seemed to be referring to the "substantial changes to some of the events and characters", a topic that is immediately discussed and cited thoroughly. Strebe ( talk) 03:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A footnote has been added which appears to take care of my comment on the "request for a sequel" statement. As for the editions, I appreciate your frustration because I've been in the same situation elsewhere. Is there a secondary source that compiles information about the various editions? If so, it can be cited. The problem is that unsourced information, correct or not, will be labeled "original research," which is against WP policies. The people who review featured article candidates are rigid (and often impolite, unfortunately) about this. I am in the middle of a series of articles on another topic and haven't the time (or the expertise) to research this point myself, musc as I like Tolkien's work. Simmaren ( talk) 19:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The Annotated Hobbit gives 5 editions. The First, 1951, 1966, 1978 and 1995. According to the wikipedia article on Edition (books) - an 'edition' is defined by the change of text & type, rather than the change of publisher or cover as given here. It looks like there's a mismatch between the general defintion and the one being used, so a citation probably won't appear for it. Rather than talk about editions, can we not quote global sales figures from somewhere? might that do the same job in showing the books incredible enduring popularity. BTW many thanks to Simmaren for spotting all these cites, it really helps. -- Davémon ( talk) 20:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your point about the distinction between "editions" and "printings/reprintings" is a very good one. Could the relevant paragraph of the article be revised something like the following? (I'm not going to boldly make the change as I haven't done the research. Note that I made an assumption about the edition of The Annotated Hobbit you are using. You may need to change the suggested FN if your copy is a different edition/ISBN.) It seems to me that the article on "English-language editions of The Hobbit" ought to be retitled as "Publication history of The Hobbit" with a distinction made between major editions and reprintings. Simmaren ( talk) 15:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Following the original publication of The Hobbit in 1937, new editions in English were published in 1951, 1966, 1978 and 1995 and the novel has been reprinted frequently. [FN = Anderson, Douglas A., ed.The Annotated Hobbit. Revised Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, 2002. ISBN  0-618-13470-0. pp. ___ ] In addition, The Hobbit has been translated into over forty languages. Some languages have seen multiple translations.[ FN = Anderson, The Annotated Hobbit p. 23]

Agreed, have been both "bold and foolhardy" and changed the paragraph as suggested. -- Davémon ( talk) 21:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• What kind of adaptation was the March 1953 production? I assume it was a play, but this should be stated as it is in the descriptions of the other adaptations. Simmaren ( talk) 16:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Done a while back. Still think this section could be much better copy-edited. It's a bit "listy". -- Davémon ( talk) 12:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• This section has a few references, but needs a lot more. Every item should have a reference. Simmaren ( talk) 16:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've done a lot on adding references to what was already there. I'm going to citation template the missing ones, in the hope that someone out there can/will find reliable sources for the few that are missing. -- Davémon ( talk) 12:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead contains the following sentence at the end: "The novel influenced the development of the modern genre of Fantasy literature, has been republished and adapted many times since its first edition." While undoubtedly true, the first part of this statement is not supported by the body of the article, which does not have an "Influence" or "Significance" section. Such a section (appropriately sourced) is needed. In default of such a section, this part of the statement should be supported by a citation. Simmaren ( talk) 17:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"The familiar form of the riddle-game allows Gollum and Bilbo to discourse, rather than the content of the riddles themselves. This idea of a superficial contrast in characters' linguistic styles leading to an understanding of the deeper unity is a constant recurring theme throughout The Hobbit."

• These two sentences (evidently paraphrases taken from Tom Shippey's biography) don't make much sense to me. The first seems to be incomplete and the second is vague and appears to refer to a prior discussion that isn't included in the article. Can someone who has access to Shippey's book (I don't or I'd take care of it) run this down and clarify these sentences? Simmaren ( talk) 21:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK I've tried to clarify this. Can you look over it and see if it makes any sense? -- Davémon ( talk) 19:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

On the page, there's a huge gap between the intro and the table of contents. I would fix this, but I'm not sure how. Could someone please fix it? Flamingtorch372 ( talk) 00:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Strebe, I take it from your user page that you are the original author of much of this article. Whether my recent edits were an improvement or not I will leave for others to judge. Obviously, I think they were or I wouldn't have taken the time and trouble to make them. Is it possible that you are feeling a sense of ownership of the article? It would appear so, for you to reverse all of my edits summarily without any discussion, as if they were vandalism. I will not work on this page again -- I don't see that there is any point. Simmaren ( talk) 03:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Simmaren, you're putting a lot of work into this, and I appreciate it. I imagine others are as well. I have reverted only a small portion of your submissions, so I urge you to reassess what's going on here. The plot summary has been thrashed thoroughly for years. Every word in it has been excruciated over because we're obliged to keep it succinct and coherent. It's difficult to change anything in it without interfering with some other part of it, it's so tightly woven. The summary gets hit practically daily, so it's hard to respond in detail to every submission. So few of them are clear improvements. But since you requested it [with arrows to your edits]:

Bilbo gets separated → Bilbo is separated. Is conveys less temporal progression. It's more passive than becomes or gets.

Groping along lost, he → Lost and in the dark, Bilbo. Groping along in the tunnels already conveys dark, and your version loses how he found the ring with no gain. Whom he refers to is clear. Too many "Bilbos" spoils the broth.

Bilbo escapes → Bilbo escapes Gollum. Escaping Gollum is too specific. He escapes Gollum, the goblins, and the tunnels. Everything. Too specific is too exclusive.

Raising his reputation → increasing his stature in their eyes. Your version is wordier because the idiom requires in their eyes — otherwise it means he grew taller. Given his real stature, the idiom is particularly problematic. It's also wordier for no gain.

Whose ambition is to → who plan to realize their ambition to. Verbose and carrying redundancy. I see the original has been fiddled as well recently. Who seek to is all it needs to convey everything. I'll fix it.

Hosting a planning party for Thorin's band of dwarves → hosting Thorin's band of dwarves. You've lost what Bilbo's hosting. Is he hosting a dance? A field trip to the Lonely Mountain? A pinewood derby?

During the council → As they all meet, Gandalf unveils. As is vague, as as generally is. Does it mean as they began to gather? Or during the gathering? (And for what? You took out the reason they were gathering.) The original conveys it clearly.

Driven → taken. Driven is more accurate and carries more impact: they were driven with whips, according to the text, not carried.

Fulfil → fulfill. This article uses British spelling. This particular edit has been reverted dozens of times.

Your other edits in this section were clear improvements and remain, as do most of your edits since you began.

Strebe ( talk) 08:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There are only about four characters listed in the actual article. In the book there are several more. I think the list of characters should either be drastically extended or made into a new article to really do The Hobbit justice. - Kanogul ^{( talk)} 16:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Where it talks about The Hobbit movie, it says that an young director named John Bauwens will be directing it. However, the source link doesn't work, and I've been reading at alot of places that Guillermo del Toro (Read Here) will be directing it. Whats the deal? Flamingtorch372 ( talk) 23:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, Guillermo del Toro will be directing it. An anon changed it to John Bauwens, but that edit was missed when the vandalism was reverted. Thanks for pointing it out! – Psyche825 _(talk) 00:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

OOT: Well if thats the case, I wonder what the movie will be like. Guillermo del Toro looks like an amazing director. I haven't seen Pan's Labyrinth, but it looks really good. Lets hope he does an incredible job with the movie!

BIT: Your welcome!! lol. Flamingtorch372 ( talk) 23:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.