The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
discussion
Why was Smaug slain with an arrow not a sword?
date
newest »
newest »
Sara wrote: "Richard wrote: "I like the choice of Bard killing Smaug, because it adds to the subplot of magic going out of the world by the rise of man. If one of the magical creatures had done it that point wo..."NICE.
You try getting close enough to ticked off dragon to chop its head and I'll watch on the sidelines with popcorn... Best way to destroy an enemy is with a long range attack, if you can. Tolkien was going off logic. If you could kill a dragon from an arrow's flight away that would be the wisest of choices. The other alternative is dismemberment and the "human bacon" scenario mentioned earlier.
Alkatraz wrote: "You try getting close enough to ticked off dragon to chop its head and I'll watch on the sidelines with popcorn... Best way to destroy an enemy is with a long range attack if you can. Tolkien was g..."I'm sorry, but you can't just attribute Tolkien's approach to storytelling to the "wisest choice" of a long range attack; he's a much subtler writer than that. It's a bit like saying writing in a drone strike on a target would be a wiser move than going for the more dangerous approach of depatching a bomber and its crew with all the risks involved: where's the skill in doing that, and where the reader's engagement in the story?
No, there has to be a literary reason for Tolkien's decision, and this utilitarian explanation just will not do for me, Alkatraz.
I think I prefer Richard's explanation, though this is not something I'll lose a lot of sleep over. After all, at the beginning, we are told that reason we don't see Hobbits anymore is because humans became too numerous, and we're large, noisy creatures that scare them off.Alkatraz, I sort of buy your reasoning. Bilbo was invisible at the time, so he had something of an advantage, but he was also TINY. Just trying to pick up a goblet was work for him, and then Smaug had that uncanny sense of smell. Moving in closer would probably not have been the very finest idea, unless he wanted to go out a martyr (which, as we see from several references that I doubt anyone will question, he does not)! This kind of practical problem-solving that is consistent with the world as Tolkien has set it up, is what helps to make the story a masterpiece. PS If you teach 8th grade lang. arts in a rough school, and you can make students cry when Thorin dies, you WIN!
To kill a flying dragon with a sword?It's not a good idea!
If you want to read about dragons being killed with swords read the Silmarillion. Tolkien definitely knows how to have Elf lords go one on one with dragons. I haven't read it in a million years but I'm pretty sure that Glaurung, the father of the great worms dies on a sword.Also remember that the longbow is a decidedly English invention. If Tolkien wanted to kill Smaug in an English way he'd use the same weapon that defeated the French at Agincourt.
We could also throw in that this isn't the first time that Tolkien killed off a major B.A. with a bow. Isildur was shot to death by orcs after jumping into the Anduin River. And then there is Boromir falling to the same fate on the banks of the Anduin, not far from where Isildur died. Twists like this are what makes Tolkien the best.
Assuming I don't read Silmarillion, did that dragon possess a jewel-reinforced tummy?
John wrote: "the longbow is a decidedly English invention. If Tolkien wanted to kill Smaug in an English way he'd use the same weapon that defeated the French..."That is pure gold. Fits the characters and the author. It's lore Tolkien would have absorbed through his lifetime and came out in his writing even if he didn't plan it - before guns the English required all to practice weekly with the longbow.
A mundane weapon that defeats the most armored creature at the top of the fantasy food chain.
Youre right. That's strong.
I know this is probably the weakest response ever on this thread but my answer is this: I guess the reason Smaug was not slain with a sword but with an arrow is because Tolkien did not want to become formulaic in this kind of story. Normally we expect dragons to die by a sword because it is something so many fantasies in books seem to dream about. This part in the book was great. I found this battle after the first one with Smaug absolutely unexpected (I was so sure he was going to die in the cave and yet he escapes!).
Now wait a minute.Smaug was attacking Lake-Town from the air for a reason. The town received advance notice that the dragon would be there and so they threw down the bridges, hence, Smaug had to attack while flying. The advance notice came from Bard himself, the "gloomy" fellow watching the north with his friends who saw the dragon fire and raised the alarm. So the dragon was positioned by the hero himself, and slain by him, aided by an heirloom and a bird who could only speak to members of his royal house, all pretty clearly directed by a certain amount of fate.
That being said, Tolkien was in fact depicting in the Third Age a changing world in which events like these were rare, not because of declining valor of men so much as the latter-day rarity of things like dragons and evil sorcerers. I think his point was that times might change, but that valor didn't have to.
A distance weapon makes more sense. Smaug would melt your sword before you could stick it into him except perhaps the ones of elven make. They could be flame proof. I always thought the idea of killing a fire breathing dragon with a sword pretty unlikely unless you had something to squelch the fire with first or a very good enchanted shield and enchanted sword. Same for any chain mail or armor. I always laughed at the horses riding into a dragon's reach also. Any sensible horse would be bolting in the opposite direction the minute they smelled dragon and horses can smell something a half mile away like a dog. War horses and police horses must be desensitized to all stimuli and horses must be "gun-broke" to put up with that kind of noise. Where would you get a dragon to practice with? My brother's horse dumps him when ever they run into a deer. LOL
Susan wrote: Tolkien was in fact depicting in the Third Age a changing world in which events like these were rare, not because of declining valor of men so much as the latter-day rarity of things like dragons and evil sorcerers. I think his point was that times might change, but that valor didn't have to.I never thought of it in quite that way (I just accepted that attacking a dragon while he was in the air was the only sensible way to do it, and never bothered to analyze it any further) but I like your interpretation.
I also agree that fate played a large part ... that is, the task chosen for Bard by higher powers. But Eru gave Men free will, so Bard was not bound to his fate, and could have shirked the task. Fortunately for Lake Town, he didn't.
Is this not spoiler material?
Donna wrote: "Assuming I don't read Silmarillion, did that dragon possess a jewel-reinforced tummy?"No. It is clearly stated that the dragon (spoilers) Glaurung has a soft underbelly. Turin, the dragonslayer, attacks him from beneath using a famous sword, Gurthang. Very classical approach as dragon-hunting goes. Perhaps Tolkien searched for variation in the affair of Smaug?
Anastasia [I'm Wonderstruck...] wrote: "Hurin wrote: "How can you slay a dragon with a sword if it's in the air?Damn, what a question."
I agree completely. Otherwise ol' Smaug wouldn't be dead...."
Right? It would have to be a really long sword. Hard to coordinate, especially since the tip of it would have to pierce that one little spot where Smaug's armor is missing...
Who the hell would be stupid enough to get close to a angry dragon with a sword to kill it!?
Michael-ann wrote: "Who the hell would be stupid enough to get close to a angry dragon with a sword to kill it!?"A hero.
Maybe JRR was writing a rollicking children's yarn and wasn't THAT swayed by mythology?Remember, those who quote 3rd Age-4th Age transitions, that The Hobbit was written before LOTR and most of the Silmarillion.
I'd even hazard a guess that these weren't even thought about issues. But I won't because I don't try to analyse an author to death. Especially when he is.
An appropriate instance - When asked what 'American Pie' meant, Don McLean replied that it meant he would never have to get a job. And I doubt that was a consideration when he wrote the song.
Or the constant harping on LOTR being an allegory for WWII, no matter how many times JRR denied it.
Just read the book and enjoy it for what it is. If you need to analyse an author's motives, then Fantasy is probably not the genre for you.
Why was Smaug slain with an arrow not a sword? Because you can't shoot a sword with a bow?
You can, but it has to be a very well-balanced sword.
There is an underlying theme in the slaying of Smaug, but it will show Tolkien at his most archaic, anti-modern side. Bard is a poor neglected man in the town, but a descendant of kings. (Remember Aragorn?). The town is ruled by opportunistic corrupt merchants. It is the way to show Bard as the dragonslayer and show him also as the legitimate ruler, and the way he kills Smaug is a modest way, in tone with the person. Tolkien was a legitimist - not a democrat.
So corrupt merchants running the joint down are okay, because that is democratic?
Peter wrote: "So corrupt merchants running the joint down are okay, because that is democratic?"It's definitely not OK, but what you should expect...
What I am actually getting atm. And we have a monarch.
Of a sort. I remember T.S. Eliot in the twenties defining himself as "politically a monarchist", but immediately adding that the term had no contemporary definition. Tolkien and Eliot was o so different, but here they perhaps had a point in common.Tolkiens underlying idea is that the rule of a rightful king will be a rule of law, not an oligarchy disguised as democracy. I think...
I was expecting an epic battle with the dwarves against the dragon.
Lucas wrote: "I was expecting an epic battle with the dwarves against the dragon."I think that what you got (in the book), this complex plot with Bilbo spotting Smaugs weakness, the thrush telling Bard, Bards background and the special arrow, is much more original. One of the real strong points in "The Hobbit".
Bjarne wrote: "...is much more original"I agree that is not cheesy.
The dragon was like the center of the story, the final boss, and then it took an arrow on the chest and died. But Smaug dying so easily felt like... disappointing.
Sosen wrote: "My question is: why didn't Bilbo kill the dragon? It really seemed like the entire book was building up to that!"No, it was not. You have read too much too predictable books.
As a reply to original question, because the dragon was flying. You would need a damn long hand to reach it! However, it IS possible to slay a dragon with a sword. Túrin killed Glaurung with a sword.
no, it's not some weird sign you're imagining. It was practical.
Lucas wrote: "I was expecting an epic battle with the dwarves against the dragon."Luckily you got it in the movie. It was all wrong tho, and no dwarf would have been stupid enough even to try like that, but Jackson gave us an epic battle! Hooray!
I would not say that Bard was any less heroic , he was just more practical. Anyway some of the greatest heroes in mythology have used bows such as Hercules and Robin Hood.
Donna wrote: "Assuming I don't read Silmarillion, did that dragon possess a jewel-reinforced tummy?"Nope his belly was scaleless and that was where he got himself stabbed.... I think its been a while since I have read that book.
The Silmarillion gets into dragon lore a bit more, but unless they're young, dragons are nearly impossible to kill in Middle Earth. There's a reason elves fear them and Balrogs. A big reason for that is that they can lay waste to everything from a great distance because of that whole breathing fire thing. Then there's their armor and size. Smaug's already impressive impenetrability was further enhanced by lying around in gold and jewels for 60 years while he got bigger and stronger, too. The role of hobbits in MIddle Earth is not as sword wielding, battle heavy hero's, but the smaller, every day, heroism of seeing a task through, being loyal, being clever, and doing things that terrify you against great odds. That's why Bilbo doesn't kill the dragon and it was never leading up to that. There's more than one kind of heroic journey, and hobbits in ME are a way to show a very human, plain so sort of heroism, that saves the world without a flashy show.
There are all kinds of mythological themes to harken back to explain the arrow...but it's also just logical when you have a foe who is flying, breathing fire, and is impervious to hacking weapons. Plus, it's really Smaug's pride that gets him killed. If he hadn't been so full of himself to show off his sparkly belly, Bard never would have found out about the hole and things might have gone super differently. That Tolkien, always weaving themes together.
I honestly think it's because of distance, and because Tolkien is original; who's ever killed a dragon with a black arrow?
why ? becuase it an wonderful arrow guys that's a no-brainier you guys know that
Um i agree is'nt a dragon supposed to be tough i mean why would he have that week of a underside
because only a black arrow can pierce a dragon. because their skin is like diamond. also because he was at a distance
I know a lot of you do not like the movie but I think the way they explained the black arrow made sense. I never thought that shooting a regular-sized arrow at a huge dragon from a longbow could have done it. Bard needed more firepower and I think the addition of a windlass in the movie made that fit in wonderfully. Also just a side note: Glaurung could not fly. He had no wings. Therefore it was possible for him to be killed by a sword.
Chris wrote: "It's not as if using a bow-and-arrow is akin to using a drone to strike your target, is it? (Or is it?)"More like a SAM shooting down the drone . . .
Black arrow sounds better than Black Sword...
Dragons fly, arrows fly. I believe that covers it.
Or ... the Hobbit is first and foremost a book for children. Hobbits themselves are a metaphor for children - having adventures in a dangerous world populated by adults and older children.This gives Tolkien a bit of a challenge. How can a child-creature take part in a sword and sorcery adventure and defeat a fire-breathing dragon?
It's not a huge leap from that to making Bilbo into a thief - something that children could realistically contribute to an adventure.
Then how to defeat the dragon? Decapitation with a sword would be a bit gory for the book's target audience. It would also risk turning Bard into the hero and diverting attention away from Bilbo. So let's say that Bilbo spotted the missing scale which allowed Bard to fire the deadly arrow.
That would keep Bilbo as the hero (sort of), not upset the kids reading it and be more or less realistic.
Hang an a minute - killing a dragon with a single arrow shot? That sounds a bit far-fetched. So let's make it an ancestral black arrow, which also fits in with Tolkien's themes of destiny and the importance of the past.
When you think about it terms of what Tolkien was trying to achieve as a writer, I think it's hard to see many other ways that Smaug could have been defeated whilst still fitting in with the themes of the book.
Realistically speaking even though this is fantasy, Tolkien wanted the Dwarves to kill Smaugh with an arrow rather than the traditional dragon's head on a spike. Not only that it only makes sense to kill a dragon with an arrow. Also if an arrow merely scraped a scale on Smaug a sword would be just a difficult. He has thick skin (scales.) They had some crazy accuracy to hit Smaug in the very spot where his scale was missing. http://ajmartinezauthor.com/fathers-w...
Ummm, a Man killed Smaug.Realistically you could try to get spelling and (fictional) facts correct.
Possibly because Tolkien wanted to show the ascendancy of Man in the coming Fourth Age.
Or, more probably, because it suited the way he wanted the story to go.
He's not around to defend himself, but I know a lot of authors are bemused by the motives readers attribute to them.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Remember that Tolkien invented (at least to a wide audience) the genre of fantasy. Once you are in a world of fantasy, you can make up any rules you like, so long as you are consistent.