Is The Hobbit more morally complex than LOTR?

[axordil]

I almost made this a poll.

I'm thinking about the fact that there are more overlapping and competing agendas between characters who all believe themselves to be pursuing a "good" cause. This applies to the book as well as to the movies, obviously, but a discussion after DOS with my son about who the "good guys" were and why "good guys" would end up in conflict prompted the thought. I look at the varying goals of:

Gandalf
Thorin
Thranduil
Bard
Beorn
Bilbo
and even Tauriel

And the conflicting loyalties become dizzying, albeit in a good way.

Example--Bard's right. The dwarves are going to poke the dragon, and the dragon's going to destroy Lake-town. The fact that there's a less-than-awful ending to that doesn't change the awful middle. People are going to die because of the dwarves' greed...and Gandalf's plan, which pushed them into action.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm pretty sure that I have posed this exact same question somewhere, some time in the past decade (but with regard to the books, of course).

The short answer is "yes".

[Dave_LF]

One of the reasons I dislike the whole hereditary madness thing the filmmakers are doing is because I fear it will reduce the moral ambiguity of the endgame. In the book, Thorin is quite justified in getting huffy with Bard and Thranduil for bringing armies to his gate (though he takes the whole thing too far). And Bard was justified in demanding restitution in the first place (though there were better ways of doing it). If the orcs hadn't shown up and it had turned into dwarves vs. elves and men, it would be really difficult to decide who to root for.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

One thing I thought was odd was that in the build-up to the films, there was a lot of talk about how you wouldn't be able to tell whether Bard was a good guy or a bad guy. As it turns out, he seems to be the most lilly-white of any of them. Which isn't really wrong, but it seems odd that the build-up was so wrong.

[Dave_LF]

Based on the article Elen posted earlier, film 1 was originally going end with Bard's "don't move or you're dead," and audiences would have had to wait a whole year to figure out where that was going. Maybe that's what they had in mind when they said that. Even as it is, it's not until we get past the tollmen that it becomes clear he's not an enemy (yet!).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Ah yes. That makes sense. I agree with Peter Jackson that that would have made a terrible ending!

[Elentári]

Ah yes. That makes sense. I agree with Peter Jackson that that would have made a terrible ending!

Agreed...can't understand why he would have gone for a cliff-hanger in a two-film split. A simple vista across the lake to the Lonely Mountain as the Dwarves regroup from the barrel ride would have been perfect. In fact, wouldn't the AUJ ending, with the thrush, and Smaug's eye opening have been the last shot anyway, except from across the lake rather than Mirkwood?

[axordil]

I'm pretty sure that I have posed this exact same question somewhere, some time in the past decade (but with regard to the books, of course).

The short answer is "yes".

If you had, it would not surprise me, as the topic had a touch of familiarity.

Part of me wonders if that has something to do with the moral differences between WW I and WW II. Allegories be damned, it was a lot easier to write about the different sides in a war all being flawed in the early 30s than the early 40s.

[axordil]

Bard is decent but shady. He's clearly a smuggler...and smuggling is clearly justified.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

One thing that this thread reminds me of is that The Hobbit is actually morally more in tune with The Silmarillion (and related stories) than The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien has a reputation of being a writer in which good and evil is very black and white, but that is only true (to the extent that it is true) in The Lord of the Rings. Most of his writings are full of morally ambiguous characters.

[Passdagas the Brown]

One thing that this thread reminds me of is that The Hobbit is actually morally more in tune with The Silmarillion (and related stories) than The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien has a reputation of being a writer in which good and evil is very black and white, but that is only true (to the extent that it is true) in The Lord of the Rings. Most of his writings are full of morally ambiguous characters.

I agree, and I don't.

Boromir, Denethor, Gollum, Treebeard, Tom Bombadil, and even Samwise Gamgee and Frodo Baggins (especially in the end), are all quite morally ambiguous. Gandalf himself sometimes skates the line.

Frankly, I see very little difference between Boromir and Thorin, for example (or even Denethor and Thorin). Proud royalty, who appreciate the need for harnessing power and force for self-defense.

Though Thorin's clearest equivalent is Túrin Turambar, I think...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That is why I said "to the extent that it is true." I agree that the reputation that has been attached to Tolkien is largely unfounded, even looking at the work that most generates it.

I would argue against including Frodo and Gandalf in that list. Frodo only becomes "morally ambiguous" when he is finally overcome by the Ring, which he resists longer than anyone else could have. And Gandalf only does morally ambiguous things when they serve the greater good, being ultimately a servant of Eru (particularly when he is returned and enhanced as Gandalf the White. And of course Aragorn is the ultimate goody-two-shoes.

[Passdagas the Brown]

And Gandalf only does morally ambiguous things when they serve the greater good, being ultimately a servant of Eru

Yes, but is this very different from Boromir? It was he, after all, who advocated using the Ring in the service of the greater good. Namely, protecting Gondor and the broader Middle Earth from Sauron's tyrannical ambitions. Depends on your definition of "the greater good," of course. For Gandalf, the cause is higher and less temporal than it is for Boromir.

But though Gandalf is obviously less sanguine about justifying unsavory means for good ends (and categorically rejects explicit domination over the will of others), he is not wholly immune to the occasional athoritarian measure.

[kzer_za]

Gandalf the Grey is actually much grouchier in the books than the films - he talks about roasting Barliman Butterbur alive and has a big bad wolf moment in threatening to blow Frodo's door down! I imagine him saying these things with a twinkle in his eye, but still...

But yes, I agree with Voronwë. There is some degree of truth in the idea that LotR is black and white (though honestly, occasionally reality is too), but it's often vastly overstated. And many of the common criticisms of Tolkien completely fall apart when you look beyond LotR.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I agree that the main protagonists of LOTR have less morally ambiguous constitutions than the main protagonists of the Hobbit.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And I agree that it is only a matter of degree, and not (wait for it) ... black and white.

[axordil]

I agree that the main protagonists of LOTR have less morally ambiguous constitutions than the main protagonists of the Hobbit.

A good way of phrasing it.

Much of the difference I do attribute to the monopolar nature of evil in LOTR: Sauron and his Ring. With the exception of the more nearly neutral like Bombadil and the Ents (a great band name) that moral frame enforces a certain alignment of action among even the more fractious elements of the West, from the start of the story on.

Such an alignment is hard to see in TH before the Bo5A, when it is thrust upon the Elves, Men and Dwarves. Alliances are (and seem to always have been) matters of momentary convenience. Loyalties conflict, as do perfectly reasonable (in isolation) short-term and long-term "good" outcomes.