Talk:List of The Hobbit characters

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Verbarson in topic Thorin's sister

Is Beorn a Man? edit

Not sure about that. I'm certain in the original drafts where he was called Medwed he was a man under a spell, but by the time of the final manuscript, was he not a natural skin-shifter? Davémon (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Clearly modeled on Berserkers, whom legend described as actually turning into bears or wolves, but still men. -- Elphion (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
I debated categorizing him as a singular character, but The Hobbit doesn't suggest he's anything but a man, albeit one with special powers. Interestingly The Lord of the Rings doesn't clarify, and if anything, downplays his shape shifting. Open to interpretation, though. Strebe (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
I found a pertinent quote from The Hobbit: (Gandalf speaking) "Some say that he is a bear descended from the great and ancient bears of the mountains that lived there before the giants came. Others say that he is a man descended from the first men who lived before Smaug or the other dragons came into this part of the world, and before the goblins came into the hills out of the North. I cannot say, though I fancy the last is the true tale." I think it would be good to maintain the ambiguity if possible. Davémon (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
He was definitely mortal, though long lived, and he had descendants so he wasn't a one of enigma like Tom Bombadil. Although we do not know if his descendants retained his skin-changing ability. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 09:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes but the descendants are only mentioned in LotR. If Tolkien ever meant to make his human as opposed to bear status more clear in the Hobbit, he never did.However he never completed let alone published his 1960 revision, so who knows where that would have taken us.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Nori, Dori and Ori edit

Where is IT stated these three are brothers? It's not in The Hobbit and I can't find a reference for it? GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 22:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not aware of any such relationship. It's not mentioned in Rateliff's index, which is careful about such things (and does mention the other relationships listed in our article). -- Elphion (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Book vs. Movie edit

Can this be clarified if this is the list of characters in the book vs. the movie? I have seen the movie many times, though am less familiar with the book. FULBERT (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Added. But the link in the lede is to the book, so we did not feel such clarification was necessary. Strebe (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
It is clearer for readers now; thanks, Strebe. FULBERT (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

"Oin, son of Gloin" listed at Redirects for discussion edit


A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Oin, son of Gloin. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 30#Oin, son of Gloin until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Azog edit

Azog is mentioned by name in The Hobbit. In ch 1, Gandalf points out that Thror was killed by Azog in Moria while explaining how he got the map. (3rd ed, p66). Please reinstate the edit. -- Verbarson  talkedits 18:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Having checked The Annotated Hobbit, I note that Azog was inserted for the 3rd edition in 1966. Still, he's there. -- Verbarson  talkedits 18:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
And Azog as father of Bolg is in a footnote on p.292; also a 3rd ed addition. -- Verbarson  talkedits 19:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the diligence, -- Verbarson , and apologies for my ignorance of the 3rd edition. Reinstated. Strebe (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Outside sources edit

@Chiswick Chap: Regarding this deletion and edit description: The rationale is to prevent the article from getting gummed up with details from the retrospective histories that Tolkien constructed for his larger legendarium. Those details were not part of the story and are not needed to understand the characters as they were written, and do not even necessarily reflect what the characters were when The Hobbit was written. This is especially acute with Gollum, whose role and characterization was markedly changed retrospectively. Even then, nothing more is needed from The Lord of the Rings in order to understand the revised character. To be clear, I do not object to outside sources being cited; that is practically required by Wikipedia guidelines. I object to details appearing in this article that do not appear in The Hobbit — particularly given that this is a list-class article. Strebe (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well I'm glad that we agree that reliable sources can be cited. I don't see at all that lists need to be poorly-cited - at the moment, most of the items don't even say which chapter of The Hobbit they appear in! I actually don't understand what "gummed up" would mean - if you think that the provision of reliably-cited information about Tolkien's different drafts and revisions of The Hobbit are irrelevant, I'd certainly say that was strange, as they're plainly on-topic. Anything that is in The History of The Hobbit, for example, must be in the article's scope. In the case of Gollum, this article certainly does not need details of the character's actions in LOTR; but Tolkien's description in LOTR of Gollum's origins and how he came to be in the position he was as described in The Hobbit might well be thought relevant. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Chiswick Chap:, my understanding of this article (though it is nowhere explicitly stated therein) is that it deals with The Hobbit as a published book. This implies that the 1937, 1951 (change in Gollum's motivation) and 1966 (minor changes including Azog) editions are all relevant, and that Anderson's The Annotated Hobbit is a useful source. But it also implies that the pre-publication drafts, with Bladorthin and Pryftan and many other things that were changed before publication, are not covered by the article because that material was never published. By this logic, most of the material in Rateliff's The History of The Hobbit is not relevant. Also, much of The Lord of the Rings is not relevant (we don't need to say that Gloin is the father of Gimli), though I think it is useful to point out differences (Bullroarer's relationship to Bilbo, Thror with an accent) that good faith editors may be tempted to 'correct' back into The Hobbit.
If I am wrong, I have Rateliff's compendious work and I am prepared to go through it collecting names to add and cross-reference in the article, as an act of penance. In any case, I shall do my bit to reference the existing entries. -- Verbarson  talkedits 14:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
I think I have referenced all items to The Hobbit, and any needed refs to The Lord of the Rings. Thanks to Chiswick Chap for putting me right on {{harvid}} -- Verbarson  talkedits 22:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thorin's sister edit

@JonathanFreed: My apologies for dismissing your mention of Thorin's sister, I should have remembered that Thorin is recorded as Fili and Kili's mother's elder brother. I will reinstate that fact and reference it. However, anything not mentioned in The Hobbit as published should not be included in this article. -- Verbarson  talkedits 07:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply